Walking thru Free Agency Pt 3 - and questions (bidding and list)

[Dan Sez 0]

this is about bids and tiebreaks

 

from the rules

 

12. Each team may submit up to 3 names with bids. The total of the 3 bids cannot exceed the amount of FA points a franchise possesses.

13. Free agents will be awarded to franchises that submit the highest bid to both CC's by the deadline.

14. In case of a tie bid, the team with the lowest regular season standing based on the in season Ranking Order. Once the Fantasy regular season ends (Week 14 of NFL games), the remaining weeks of FA access (NFL weeks 15 through 17) Rank Order used will be the one that seeded the Fantasy Playoffs.

 

blind bids, highest wins

 

Tie break: weaker teams get their picks first, in all three bids (in tied in all three).

 

Rank Order on all three bids sounds a little unfair? Then consider that the team is spending a very limited resource and may not be able to out bid you at a latter date.

[Dan Sez 0]

we need to discuss the following

 

from the rules

 

15. Free agent awards received by only one CC before the deadline will be awarded only if there was no bid on that player from any team that submitted bids to both CCs.

16. If the web host site will allow blind bids mechanisms, the above maybe amended.

 

the double check system. Are we creating security or a system of failure? What do you think?

[whoisjgalt 0]

Dan Sez:

the double check system.  Are we creating security or a system of failure?  What do you think?

Just never use blind copy - if I can see that Dan was CC'ed and Dan can see that I was CC'ed then we should never have a problem.

[Dan Sez 0]

PROPOSED RULES ADDENDUM

 

please read and post acceptance or rejection of the following:

 

17. A full list of team bids will be posted by Friday afternoon on the FFToday Message board or another mutually agreed public forum.

18. This list will include the time received, the number of bids submitted, each bid with name and price.

19. No team may submit bids totally more than the remaining FA points the team owns.

 

 

example of rule 19 - If I have only 1 FA point left, I can only bid on one player. If I have 3 FA points left, I can bid on one player for 3 pints, 1 player for 2 pts and another for 1 pt or bid just 1 FA point on 3 different players. A team can not overbid.

[whoisjgalt 0]

Dan Sez:

12. Each team may submit up to 3 names with bids. The total of the 3 bids cannot exceed the amount of FA points a franchise possesses.

This indicates no conditional bidding. I would prefer to allow conditional bidding. For example:

 

Bid 12 on Player X

If not then bid 10 on Player Y

If not then bid 8 on Player Z

 

There is no way to get two from that list.

 

The current rules allow 12 to be bid on Player X with only 5 or fewer points left for bidding on a backup. You can still get both, or neither.

[Dan Sez 0]

I think it greatly complicates the bidding process and ask us to make value decisions or to infer extemporary logic.

 

Also, given "conditions" who decides which bid is executed first?

 

Team A (has highest priority) bids 2 on Ziggy

Team C (stronger team than A or bids conditional 3 or 2 depending on below.

 

Team B (still higher priority) bids 2 on Henry

Team C again offers a conditional 3 or 2 bid.

 

which one do we execute? Do we execute both? Too much potential confusion I fear.

[Dan Sez 0]

Your conditional seems to propose the conditional is to acquire just one player.

 

Again, too confusing or more potential for miscommunication. If we do well the first season, we could table that potential for one of the off season reviews.

 

There are tons of potential land mines here. I would like to proceed cautionly, with solid boundrys.

 

We can talk about, but I am reluctant. Thoughts?

[whoisjgalt 0]

Dan Sez:

Your conditional seems to propose the conditional is to acquire just one player.

 

Again, too confusing or more potential for miscommunication.  If we do well the first season, we could table that potential for one of the off season reviews.

 

There are tons of potential land mines here.  I would like to proceed cautionly, with solid boundrys.

 

We can talk about, but I am reluctant.  Thoughts?

I believe we just need to be very specific on the language requirements. Or am I missing something?

[whoisjgalt 0]

Dan Sez:

I think it greatly complicates the bidding process and ask us to make value decisions or to infer extemporary logic.

 

Also, given "conditions" who decides which bid is executed first?

 

Team A (has highest priority) bids 2 on Ziggy

Team C (stronger team than A or bids conditional 3 or 2 depending on below.

 

Team B (still higher priority) bids 2 on Henry

Team C again offers a conditional 3 or 2 bid.

 

which one do we execute?  Do we execute both?  Too much potential confusion I fear.

The conditional bidding I'm outlining would NOT allow you to bid different amounts for the same player. It's not like:

 

Bid 12 on Player X

If not then bid 14 on Player X

If not then bid 16 on Player X

 

Because we would only sort through the first level anyway.

[whoisjgalt 0]

Dan Sez:

I think it greatly complicates the bidding process and ask us to make value decisions or to infer extemporary logic.

 

Also, given "conditions" who decides which bid is executed first?

 

Team A (has highest priority) bids 2 on Ziggy

Team C (stronger team than A or bids conditional 3 or 2 depending on below.

 

Team B (still higher priority) bids 2 on Henry

Team C again offers a conditional 3 or 2 bid.

 

which one do we execute?  Do we execute both?  Too much potential confusion I fear.

We just need an algorithm that we can publish for everyone to see.

 

step one: Find the largest level one bid and award that player. Remove this player from everyone's list and cancel any conditionals for the team who got him. Removing this player from everyone else's list then reset's their conditional bids to a different level (former level two's are now level one's, for instance if the taken player used to be on level one).

 

follow up step: repeat step one with the post-step one reordered listing.

[Dan Sez 0]

My concern is to make it workable and easy to understand.

[whoisjgalt 0]

whoisjgalt:

We just need an algorithm that we can publish for everyone to see.  

 

step one: Find the largest level one bid and award that player.  Remove this player from everyone's list and cancel any conditionals for the team who got him.  Removing this player from everyone else's list then reset's their conditional bids to a different level (former level two's are now level one's, for instance if the taken player used to be on level one).  

 

follow up step: repeat step one with the post-step one reordered listing.

Use the tiebreak procedure to affect the ordering if multiple players have the same highest remaining bid left.

[whoisjgalt 0]

Dan Sez:

My concern is to make it workable and easy to understand.

eek! This from Mr. Wordy himself. I'm shocked. eek!

[whoisjgalt 0]

whoisjgalt:

The conditional bidding I'm outlining would NOT allow you to bid different amounts for the same player.  It's not like:

 

Bid 12 on Player X

If not then bid 14 on Player X

If not then bid 16 on Player X

 

Because we would only sort through the first level anyway.

With the algorithm I outlined, the 2nd and 3rd levels would NEVER execute. Either this guy gets him for 12 or someone else gets him. The 2nd and 3rd levels get ignored while the player in question is being assigned to a team, and then clear as soon as he has been assigned.

[Dan Sez 0]

whoisjgalt:

 

Dan Sez:

My concern is to make it workable and easy to understand.

eek! This from Mr. Wordy himself. I'm shocked. eek!

I try to put all the conditionals I can foresee in the rules.

 

I don't know. We lose some of the element of surprise if we put in conditionals - like in real life sometimes you run out of time to make a deal (get outbid or out ranked).

 

There is a week to talk it thru but think about some of the other elements that get changed by adding conditionals - you put in a bunch fo tinker-tonk orders or you put in a few simple straight-forward bids. Put up or shut up (draw poker) verses a gathering of connections (Dr. Pepper 10's 2's and 4's are wild).

[Hog Chow 0]

IMHO, we definitely need conditional bids. If I have 2 TEs go down one week to injury with only 2 FA points and one viable TE starter for the upcoming week, I need to be able to do the following:

 

I bid 2 on TE A

if he is taken, I bid 2 on TE B

If he is taken, I bid 2 on TE C

And so forth and so on....

 

Other wise, I would be forced to bid on a scrub to ensure I received a player and not risk losing a better TE.

[whoisjgalt 0]

Hog Chow:

IMHO, we definitely need conditional bids.  If I have 2 TEs go down one week to injury with only 2 FA points and one viable TE starter for the upcoming week, I need to be able to do the following:

 

I bid 2 on TE A

if he is taken, I bid 2 on TE B

If he is taken, I bid 2 on TE C

And so forth and so on....

 

Other wise, I would be forced to bid on a scrub to ensure I received a player and not risk losing a better TE.

Acreed - and exactly the reasoning behind my proposal.

[Dan Sez 0]

alright, lets get some more input.

 

I would still like to limit the process to acquiring only 3 players a week. Limited coin and competition for resources should light a fire to trade proposals (for more coin and players).

[Hog Chow 0]

Dan Sez:

 

 

I would still like to limit the process to acquiring only 3 players a week.  

I definitely support that 100%, it's the nonconditional bidding that causes me some concern. In my scenario above, once a TE was awarded, I would be done for the week even if I had more jack to spend.

[FourTwoOh 0]

I have to go with the no conditional list idea. That was one of the questions I had for Dan during my application process. I kinda like the "just how bad you want him" angle it forces. You need a replacement K, sht or get off the pot, as they say in these parts. wink

[Dan Sez 0]

The single bid allows for its own form of strategy

 

example:

 

Since I lost week 1, I am in the top half of tie breakers. Like most of the teams, the team need is for more point producers. We all see the top FA kickoff/specialist and you have to plan your move.

 

Is it worth spending 6 pts for your guy? If you get outbid, you get nothing - that is what the decision is concerned about.

 

I think of that as its own form of pressure/strategy in the game dynamic/ What is the theme of this game? Building depth and the competition for resources. Opening up conditional picks insures that you at leas get some guy in my view reduces competition for the resource by allowing you to recompence with a second prize that only drains the thinning talent pool. It does little for competition.

 

Conditionals don't really reward those who research either because it allows poor bidders to keep sucking the pool down and "get lucky" with guys you had pegged for pickup status but wanted to bid on next week (3 player limit).

 

Conditionals open up the flow of players as you will eventually get some player for each of your three bids. In fact, conditionals will impact the 3 player limit. I don't want teams to ballon (empty the FA pool) until late season - why else have 17 weeks.

 

Unconditional bids play into the blind system even better than conditionals because each bid becomes so much more strategic.

 

As I said I am reluctant to change. I want to hear how you consider the benefits of Conditionals beyond the increased and guaranteed flow of players. What does it add to the strategy or suspense element?

 

Think about the numbers that have made this game design - 12 initial "keepers". only 12 draft picks per offseason. 18 retention pt for this offseason (are you yet projecting cost?) No more than 30-32 pts total once the game has matured. 1 Franchise Player. I want to keep the teams in competition for resources year round. That includes the Free Agency period.

 

Keep commenting. I want to give this a fair discussion and I am willing to consider how you think this version benefits the game play or how it contrast or compares to other leagues you have been it. Show me why something would be good. I'm not too proud to steal an idea or process, as long as it falls within the overall concept - depth and the competition for resources.

[hellothere 1]

i remember thinking about this at one point, and i liked the idea of putting your balls out on the table for "your" guy as it has been referenced. i think limiting the bids as we are doing, makes FA points a more precious commodity and will be used more wisely, this could lead to more trading action in the long run so im for limiting in this case

[Hog Chow 0]

Dan Sez:

 

Keep commenting. ....

Nothing else I can say, I guess we'll agree to disagree and I'll be happy to participate in whatever the outcome may be. I do appreciate your willingness to at least hear others out and consider their thoughts.

[Dan Sez 0]

Hog Chow:

... least hear others out and consider their thoughts.

That is the only way to make it better.

 

I have a strong "design in mind" and I have tried to share that thru a number of points. That doesn't mean I maybe blind to some mechanism or condition. I just want to openly state the goal and if you guys have better alternative, dang right I will steal or incorp them.

 

I want a good game. I want something that makes you think of this league differently than any other you have been in. A very tall order and maybe a bit braggadocious perhaps, but there it is.

 

If changing things makes the group happy and it stays within the "design in mind", I would be foolish not to listen. So think about it (the concept thing) and see if conditionals or a limited form of that - a compromise between the two - works within and plead your cases.

 

thanks for letting me drone on about "concepts", some people misinterp and think I am trying to high-brow them when I am just trying my best to relay the symbology I think/dream/create in.

[Hog Chow 0]

Dan Sez:

 

I want a good game.  I want something that makes you think of this league differently than any other you have been in.  

God Bless understatements!!

 

This league is unique and I can't wait to see what we encounter.

[Orgazmo 2]

FourTwoOh:

I kinda like the "just how bad you want him" angle it forces. You need a replacement K, sht or get off the pot, as they say in these parts.    wink  

Finally some plain English. I agree this and look forward the the feeling of my anus clenching in anticipation of my winning bid - or the similarly deflated feeling of a losing bid. We did this in a league years ago and it really added some zest to the midweek.

[Dan Sez 0]

We have a number of issues for the first end of season review (trading of FA points outside the Active Season, future SR point values, kinks and clarifications of game mechanics). I am willing to listen to better ideas.

 

We really haven't addressed the cumbersome aspect of executing conditionals, which becomes more problematic the deeper we allow team orders to nest those conditionals.

 

An Extreme Example:

I bid 4 on Player U (someone hot and getting attention)

if/not then I bid 4 on Player V (another hot prospect)

if/not then I bid 1 on Player W (a player thought of in a sleeper context, getting him cheap now)

if/not then I bid 1 on Player X (another sleeper type)

if/not then I bid 2 on Player Y (getting desperate, you need to get a player)

if/not then I bid 7 on Player Z (Must Have Someone)

 

hummmmm. How does that last place bid fit into the execution flow when 216 (12 teams X 3 weekly bids X 6 levels of conditionals) renumerations and impacts must be considered? I don't want to be up all Thursday night with a slide rule and speadsheet trying to figure out that Red October's 3rd conditional trumps LL Owls 1st.

 

I know this is an extreme example and I am not trying to discount any arguements without due process.

 

I am concerned and I need some convincing.

Are there any existing leagues with procedures similar to the conditional option?

How many bids do they allow per team per week?

Are there any limits to the nesting of conditionals?

When does their talent pool dry up?

 

In reality, there are only 30-40 so statistically significant roster fillers left out in FA. If every team gets 3 players per week, we will drain the pool before we reach the 1st bye week.

[Orgazmo 2]

Since we're limited to 3 players a week, what if we dedicate Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday as the transaction days. A team is limited to the attempt of one player a day.

 

The hot commodities will of course go on Tuesday, but it leaves the outbid an opportunity to fill a need position before the games.

[Dan Sez 0]

Orgazmo:

... Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday as the transaction days. A team is limited to the attempt of one player a day.

 

The hot commodities will of course go on Tuesday, but it leaves the outbid an opportunity to fill a need position before the games.

More strategy less player flood. Interesting idea.

[Orgazmo 2]

It's painted with a broad brush, but the point was to eliminate or at least lessen the need for conditional pick-ups while allowing room for teams to have a back up plan.

 

In the league of long ago, there were no conditional bids. You won your bid or you lost it and it was really pretty neat.

 

The player pool in this league is much shallower, so that needs consideration.

[whoisjgalt 0]

Dan Sez:

 

Orgazmo:

... Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday as the transaction days. A team is limited to the attempt of one player a day.

 

The hot commodities will of course go on Tuesday, but it leaves the outbid an opportunity to fill a need position before the games.

More strategy less player flood. Interesting idea.

Who's going to file for my unemployment when I'm doing this rather than my job? wink

 

Regardless of how complex the rules are, if I can build a spreadsheet to manage it then it'll be easy to process. The only time consuming part is feeding the data in and then typing out the results.

[whoisjgalt 0]

whoisjgalt

whoisjgalt:

We just need an algorithm that we can publish for everyone to see.  

 

step one: Find the largest level one bid and award that player.  Remove this player from everyone's list and cancel any conditionals for the team who got him.  Removing this player from everyone else's list then reset's their conditional bids to a different level (former level two's are now level one's, for instance if the taken player used to be on level one).  

 

follow up step repeat step one with the post-step one reordered listing.

Use the tiebreak procedure to affect the ordering if multiple players have the same highest remaining bid left.

I remain in favor of a process like this.

[whoisjgalt 0]

Dan Sez:

We really haven't addressed the cumbersome aspect of executing conditionals, which becomes more problematic the deeper we allow team orders to nest those conditionals.

 

An Extreme Example:

I bid 4 on Player U (someone hot and getting attention)

if/not then I bid 4 on Player V (another hot prospect)

if/not then I bid 1 on Player W (a player thought of in a sleeper context, getting him cheap now)

if/not then I bid 1 on Player X (another sleeper type)

if/not then I bid 2 on Player Y (getting desperate, you need to get a player)

if/not then I bid 7 on Player Z (Must Have Someone)

 

hummmmm.  How does that last place bid fit into the execution flow when 216 (12 teams X 3 weekly bids X 6 levels of conditionals) renumerations and impacts must be considered?  I don't want to be up all Thursday night with a slide rule and speadsheet trying to figure out that Red October's 3rd conditional trumps LL Owls 1st.

In my algorithm, the last order bid would need to make it to the top level before someone else grabs him. This owner would still be out of luck if someone else bids so that Player Z is processed before he's atop this owner's list.

 

Conditional bidding doesn't assure you that you'll get someone. We ought to restrict the number of levels of the conditions. Ultimately, the only way to know for sure you'll get someone is to make sure somewhere in your list is a player who nobody else wants. As the season moves on and no players have been waived, this will likely be a problem - regardless of whether or not we allow conditionals.

[Orgazmo 2]

whoisjgalt:

 

whoisjgalt

 

whoisjgalt:

We just need an algorithm that we can publish for everyone to see.  

 

step one: Find the largest level one bid and award that player.  Remove this player from everyone's list and cancel any conditionals for the team who got him.  Removing this player from everyone else's list then reset's their conditional bids to a different level (former level two's are now level one's, for instance if the taken player used to be on level one).  

 

follow up step repeat step one with the post-step one reordered listing.

Use the tiebreak procedure to affect the ordering if multiple players have the same highest remaining bid left.

I remain in favor of a process like this.

I'd like to see that in action, but for voting purposes I'm still in line with 420's thinking - Outbid or die.

[whoisjgalt 0]

Perhaps the most straight forward way to do conditionals is this: only three bids per week. You can use up all three with a 3rd order conditional (and be done) or have three separate bids, or a two order conditional plus a stand alone bid.

 

If I have 4 points left:

 

bid 4 for X, if not 4 for Y, if not 4 for Z

-or-

bid 3 for X, if not 3 for Y

bid 1 for Z

-or-

bid 2 for X

bid 1 for Y

bid 1 for Z

 

There are ways in which each one CAN result in my not getting any players.

 

EDIT removing a "those"

[Hog Chow 0]

whoisjgalt:

Perhaps the most straight forward way to do conditionals is this: only three bids per week.  You can use those up all three with a 3rd order conditional (and be done) or have three separate bids, or a two order conditional plus a stand alone bid.  

 

If I have 4 points left:

 

bid 4 for X, if not 4 for Y, if not 4 for Z

-or-

bid 3 for X, if not 3 for Y

bid 1 for Z

-or-

bid 2 for X

bid 1 for Y

bid 1 for Z

 

There are ways in which each one CAN result in my not getting any players.

At first glance, I kinda like this....

[Orgazmo 2]

whoisjgalt:

Perhaps the most straight forward way to do conditionals is this: only three bids per week.  You can use those up all three with a 3rd order conditional (and be done) or have three separate bids, or a two order conditional plus a stand alone bid.  

 

If I have 4 points left:

 

bid 4 for X, if not 4 for Y, if not 4 for Z

-or-

bid 3 for X, if not 3 for Y

bid 1 for Z

-or-

bid 2 for X

bid 1 for Y

bid 1 for Z

 

There are ways in which each one CAN result in my not getting any players.

This looks like a nice compromise.

[whoisjgalt 0]

Does anyone else have a proposal? We should vote/choose/decide something before the season starts. Maybe start a poll next Tuesday and have a couple days of voting? The commish can start a poll at the league site on RTSports.

[Orgazmo 2]

It's POLL, you pole. Stick to numbers.

[whoisjgalt 0]

Orgazmo:

It's POLL, you pole. Stick to numbers.

fixored frown