Non-snaking draft order

[vardaski 0]

So in almost every single serpentine the person with the first selection scores the most points? Don't give me projections and preceived value. Show me an actual bias from real results and I will believe that a back fill draft is less bias than a serpentine.

I vote for real results too since my ultimate goal is to win the championship and take the money. I've been playing fantasy football for 10 years now usually in 2-3 leagues but unfortunately only have access to 8 leagues of past records so here are the results(All serpentine draft). 1st 2nd and 3rd all finish in the money in each league:

League #1 4,2,5

League #2 1,3,7

League #3 4,3,8

League #4 3,5,6

League #5 6,9,2

League #6 5,10,2

League #7 4,10,6

League #8 8,9,10

 

1st Team #4 3 out of 8

#1, #3, #5, #6, #8

6 out of 8 times teams in the top half finished in 1st

2nd # 3 and #9 #10 2 times

#2,#5,

Split evenly between top half and bottom half

 

3rd #2 2 times #6 2 times

#5, #7, #8, #10

5 out of 8 favoring the bottom half

Our pay off is 1st 300 2nd 150 and 3rd 50

Each postition making money

#4 $900

#3 $600

#5 $500

#6 $400

#8 and 10 $350

#1 and #9 $300

#2 $250

#7 $50

Now the whole premise for snake not being as good is it favors the beginning of the draft. This only seems to be slightly true. While the top half of the draft is favored slightly I'd rather have a position besides #7 that is not #1 or 2 and have just as good of a chance of making money. I wish I've had more of my drafts because I had a run of drafting 8-10 for several years where I finished in the money each year. #1 has only placed 1 time and this was last year when he forewent the expert knowledge and took LT first. I can't recall another year that is not here where #1 did win. It is coming knowledge in the two leagues I've participated in several years that #1 and #2 are generally losing positions even though they look great from the beginning.

 

I'd love to see other results because I'm sure others have more history on record but like others said the #1 position generally does not translate into a winning team. So to me serpentine seems to favor middle positions slightly but the system proposed here does not equal out those. It attempts to make the bottom part of the draft more equal to the top and right now from what I see #9 and 10 are doing better than 1 and 2.

 

You can continue to show me statistics of why the draft should be different but your statistics don't translate into reality. And I want reality because I want money!

 

Here is some real evidence that says serpentine might actually be unfair to #1 and 2 which completley debunks your premise. Now I recognize this a small sample size so someone else show me results which favor the premise that the first 2 slots are favored.

[Mangatang 0]

Alright, I think I've finally come up with the correct wording that will explain my stance on this subject better. I fully understand your point about any predictions used will inevitably be wrong come the end of the season. But again, this does not negate the validity of my argument. Here's the ultimate way to think about it:

 

Would you agree that it would be advantageous to a team to go into an auction with a $219 cap and have another team only allowed $177? Of course the $177 team could very well end up with the best team at the end of the year if he either was super good at picking talent or got lucky picking sleeper. But, you have to admit, that the $219 team had the advantage going into the auction.

 

It doesn't matter what each of those two teams had players valued at or how the results turn out. The $219 has a better chance of fielding a top team than the $177 team. This is exactly what my numbers listed above show.

 

Now, the backfill format still is advantageous to the 1st pick in the draft, but not as much ($201 versus $183).

 

Another point brought up earlier is very valid. LT is an unusually advantageous pick this year, so that would make my numbers a bit exaggerated over the "normal" years, but I'm sure even the "normal" years still support my results. I'll have to go back and find the average auction values leading into the 2006 and 2005 seasons to do a good comparison.

 

This is still the heart of my argument. Can anyone honestly claim that it's not an advantage for one team to start with a $219 cap versus another team with a $177 cap in an auction format? That's what it all boils down to.

[vardaski 0]

This is still the heart of my argument. Can anyone honestly claim that it's not an advantage for one team to start with a $219 cap versus another team with a $177 cap in an auction format? That's what it all boils down to.

With this logic why would we ever play out the year if there was a serpentine draft. Why not award the money to the top 3 picks. I don't think anyone has disagreed with an auction format being the fairest and then of course you want to start with even money.

I agree it looks like an advantage but then reality occurs the season plays through and the advantage it looks like you had is lost. Research however many leagues you've played in where people drafted in position and where they finished in the end for a snake draft.

[Jimmy 0]

With this logic why would we ever play out the year if there was a serpentine draft. Why not award the money to the top 3 picks. I don't think anyone has disagreed with an auction format being the fairest and then of course you want to start with even money.

I agree it looks like an advantage but then reality occurs the season plays through and the advantage it looks like you had is lost. Research however many leagues you've played in where people drafted in position and where they finished in the end for a snake draft.

 

Research how many times 72o wins in poker. Ability and/or luck can make it happen more often than it statistically should. But, it doesn't change that fact that you're better off starting with AA.

 

Even if the end results had a shred of validity in proving the equality of draft positions/methods (which they don't), how many leagues can you show me that don't have a single trade or FA acquisition? Using the end results of real leagues will give you false results: luck and knowledge (skill, if you prefer) skew the results and are completely unrelated to the draft position/method. Hopefully I can think of a way to make this more clear, because it's indisputable fact.

[urmother 0]

Research how many times 72o wins in poker. Ability and/or luck can make it happen more often than it statistically should. But, it doesn't change that fact that you're better off starting with AA.

 

Even if the end results had a shred of validity in proving the equality of draft positions/methods (which they don't), how many leagues can you show me that don't have a single trade or FA acquisition? Using the end results of real leagues will give you false results: luck and knowledge (skill, if you prefer) skew the results and are completely unrelated to the draft position/method. Hopefully I can think of a way to make this more clear, because it's indisputable fact.

 

 

no no no. much better to use a sample size of 24 than to think rationally about something.

[KSB2424 3,148]

I more or less agree with Jimmy's assertions. The only thing I have a problem with is that even 5-10 years of history is still not enough sample data to modify a snake draft order. Just because the top 3 of a snake draft has slightly resulted in historically better performing teams for those years does not absolutely predict the following year.

 

Scoring variations between draft picks change each and ever year. It is entirely possible that this year picks 1 and picks 13 have only a slight variance. In this scenario with a backfilled draft, it would significantly skew the draft order to the back picks of the draft. We really do not know.

 

A snake draft order mathmatically, with all things constant, is the perfect non-auction draft order. Because we cannot absolutely predict the future, and there is not a large enough sample base to absolutely predict the future, it is my opinion that a standard snake draft is the most appropriate method.

[vardaski 0]

Research how many times 72o wins in poker. Ability and/or luck can make it happen more often than it statistically should. But, it doesn't change that fact that you're better off starting with AA.

 

Even if the end results had a shred of validity in proving the equality of draft positions/methods (which they don't), how many leagues can you show me that don't have a single trade or FA acquisition? Using the end results of real leagues will give you false results: luck and knowledge (skill, if you prefer) skew the results and are completely unrelated to the draft position/method. Hopefully I can think of a way to make this more clear, because it's indisputable fact.

 

Again with the poker thing, totally different arguement because there are a finite number of outcomes and I'll take AA every time.

I completely agree about free agents, trades, players getting hurt, luck, knowledge and skill factoring into play which is why you can't make all these assumptions that a back fill draft is better at leveling the playing field because in reality it simply isn't the case. There are too many other things factoring in that you are not considering in the statistics with which you are trying to prove back fill drafts level the field. If it was so indisputable there wouldn't be 3 pages so far with arguements going back and forth.

I'm just curious who else has data from real leagues with draft position and end of the year position. I'm more interested to see those trends. Maybe others have data completely different or maybe it is similar. Do I really believe 7th is the worst spot to draft from? NO. That is the whole point of testing something. But don't use artificial statistics that don't represent the reality of the situation. The fact is that every year 5-6 of the top 10 rbs change and still every year most of that top ten is still ranked up there and projected to be there the next year.

I guess my main point still is that your premise: the top picks gain a decided advantage in a serpentine draft has not been proven. Definitely disputable

[Jimmy 0]

Hmm. Good points, KSB. Something I hand't considered is that no matter how unbalanced the Snake format was last season or even the past five or 10, there's no gurantee things will continue as they have. The inbalance of the Snake primarily exists when there are a few studs and a significant drop-off to the rest of the pack. If you theoretically removed LT2 and SJax, I honestly don't think too many people would care what slot they drafted in for a Snake. And other formats, like Backfill, would actually seem like they were punishing, instead of rewarding, the first couple draft slots.

 

That said, I think that three to five years of stats might actually be more revealing than 10+. Just from the standpoint that they're more reflective of the current state of the game. 20 years ago, for instance, the style of the game (and/or distrubution of positional talent) was different enough that there'd probably be a different emphasis on player/position focus.

 

And finally, all this talk makes me really glad we're switching over to Auction this season.

[Fozzy4 0]

I more or less agree with Jimmy's assertions. The only thing I have a problem with is that even 5-10 years of history is still not enough sample data to modify a snake draft order. Just because the top 3 of a snake draft has slightly resulted in historically better performing teams for those years does not absolutely predict the following year.

 

Scoring variations between draft picks change each and ever year. It is entirely possible that this year picks 1 and picks 13 have only a slight variance. In this scenario with a backfilled draft, it would significantly skew the draft order to the back picks of the draft. We really do not know.

 

A snake draft order mathmatically, with all things constant, is the perfect non-auction draft order. Because we cannot absolutely predict the future, and there is not a large enough sample base to absolutely predict the future, it is my opinion that a standard snake draft is the most appropriate method.

 

Actually, the nature of physical performance does indicate the same trends will continue. There are always going to be a few people who are superior to everyone else at playing football - the elite, if you will. They will always be a handful - the overall playing of the game may increase in skill, but then the elite will likewise rise even higher to be overachievers still. You can see this in every aspect of humanity - there is always a handful of people who are the absolute best at any given thing, and I think it's established enough that we can safely assume a very select elite will continue to exist in football, as it does in every other aspect of human existence. There are tons of business owners, yet only a few billionaires. Many people run, but only a handful ever even consider going to the olympics for it. Lots of people are employed as scientists, but a tiny fraction of them do really significant things (i.e. Einstein level science). Put simply, sports relies on people, and people have always demonstrated the exact same tiering we're noticing in fantasy drafts. Many people are ordinary or only somewhat above or below average, but very few can ever become extraordinarily good or bad at any given task. Mediocrity defines humanity, which is precisely why we can count on drafts continuing to be top-heavy, and make strategies to compensate.

 

Again with the poker thing, totally different arguement because there are a finite number of outcomes and I'll take AA every time.

 

Actually, there are a completely finite number of outcomes in a fantasy draft, too. Either a player is selected in a slot in the draft, or he isn't. Any combination of available players can be used to fill all available draft picks, and since there are a finite number of both players available and draft picks in the draft, there likewise is a finite number of ways the draft can happen. It is a very large set, but decidedly not infinite. The possible outcomes for each player during the season are infinite, but that is easily removed by viewing only completed season. Then you have players with a given production amount, slotted into the draft in a finite number of combinations. It makes the analysis quite easy, and subject to the exact same rules as poker analysis, coincidentally.

[KSB2424 3,148]

Actually, the nature of physical performance does indicate the same trends will continue. There are always going to be a few people who are superior to everyone else at playing football - the elite, if you will. They will always be a handful - the overall playing of the game may increase in skill, but then the elite will likewise rise even higher to be overachievers still. You can see this in every aspect of humanity - there is always a handful of people who are the absolute best at any given thing, and I think it's established enough that we can safely assume a very select elite will continue to exist in football, as it does in every other aspect of human existence. There are tons of business owners, yet only a few billionaires. Many people run, but only a handful ever even consider going to the olympics for it. Lots of people are employed as scientists, but a tiny fraction of them do really significant things (i.e. Einstein level science). Put simply, sports relies on people, and people have always demonstrated the exact same tiering we're noticing in fantasy drafts. Many people are ordinary or only somewhat above or below average, but very few can ever become extraordinarily good or bad at any given task. Mediocrity defines humanity, which is precisely why we can count on drafts continuing to be top-heavy, and make strategies to compensate.

I've seen a whole lot of people backpedal only to try and bullshit their way out of it. However this post takes the cake. Congrats!

[Bert 1,128]

Actually, there are a completely finite number of outcomes in a fantasy draft, too. Either a player is selected in a slot in the draft, or he isn't. Any combination of available players can be used to fill all available draft picks, and since there are a finite number of both players available and draft picks in the draft, there likewise is a finite number of ways the draft can happen. It is a very large set, but decidedly not infinite. The possible outcomes for each player during the season are infinite, but that is easily removed by viewing only completed season. Then you have players with a given production amount, slotted into the draft in a finite number of combinations. It makes the analysis quite easy, and subject to the exact same rules as poker analysis, coincidentally.

OMG! You can't be serious but I will play along. Since the numbers are finite, like poker, what is the probabilty the player picked second in the draft in 2007 will be the 2nd highest point producer in the league? Since it is finite and so easy to determine it should be easy to produce an answer.

 

Why does your system refuse to acknowledge that it is almost impossible to match the point production actually produced with the point production you have assigned to that draft position?

 

ETA: Are you going to list the draft results from your league so we can start an on going analysis and determine if your theory is correct or bullsh@t?

[ratbastard 0]

No, actually I just proved that it does NOT work mathematically

Please ,the only thing you proved is your not a math major. Mathmatically the serpentine draft works, just because YOU think players "values" are such, doesnt make them so. You make crappy assumptions then act as if it is hard data. Your data and assumptions are crap.

[Bert 1,128]

Please ,the only thing you proved is your not a math major. Mathmatically the serpentine draft works, just because YOU think players "values" are such, doesnt make them so. You make crappy assumptions then act as if it is hard data. Your data and assumptions are crap.

[KSB2424 3,148]

I just flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads 7 times. Therefore you have a 70% chance of coming up heads when you flip a coin. I have hard evidence as you can see. We should change the way overtime is determined in the NFL because all you have to do is call heads and you have a huge advantage. I have proven this with the data above.

 

ETA: I have devised a way to modify the coin flip to make it fairer since the standard coin flip is not because you get heads 70% of the time. I have come up with a "back filled coin" that has 3 sides. Two of the sides are tails and one is heads. This should significantly reduce the variation and make it fairer. i.e. closer to 50/50. Am I smart or what?!?!

 

[flushmonkii 0]

I will end this discussion right now. I tried to read all of the posts but it's just going back and forth with the same rhetoric being spewed. The problem a lot of you guys are having is that you want to compare draft spots with season results and that's not fair. There has to be value assigned to each spot. That's why either a third round reversal (which is what a lot of high stakes leagues are using now) or Banzai method (which is the most "fair" of them all). Google the terms. There's a site that has a good writeup on them and Banzai definitely is the best.

 

In 3RR (third round reversal) you reverse the order in the third round and then continue a regular serpentine draft. For example:

 

1-12

12-1

12-1 (3rd round reversal)

1-12

12-1

and so on

 

In Banzai you flip the third round and then keep all the other rounds the same as the original serpentine. JUST FLIP THE THIRD ROUND.

 

1-12

12-1

12-1

12-1

1-12

12-1

and so on

 

Trust me it's the best method out there. No one can accurately predict injuries or exact projections but this method evens out the value of the picks. The 1st pick is worth sooooo much more than the 12th pick. And to give the 1st pick the chance to also have the 24th and 25th while the 12th only gets 12th, 13, 36 that's just not fair since the third round is where you'll find a lot of your stud picks.

 

It is the best method out there.

[flushmonkii 0]

http://www.fantasyfootballchampionship.com/kds.asp

 

My league also does KDS but we do it with Banzai.

[Fozzy4 0]

I've seen a whole lot of people backpedal only to try and bullshit their way out of it. However this post takes the cake. Congrats!

 

Backpedaling? What? No. I explained why the future trends of football ARE in fact predictable, because the general performance breakdown in football does not and will not change substantially to invalidate my work. It's simple human nature: there is always an elite, always will be. Football is not an exception.

 

OMG! You can't be serious but I will play along. Since the numbers are finite, like poker, what is the probabilty the player picked second in the draft in 2007 will be the 2nd highest point producer in the league? Since it is finite and so easy to determine it should be easy to produce an answer.

 

As I said, you have to deal with past seasons to remove the infinite possible outcomes. Jesus you need to read what I say before you type, I just addressed this in the exact piece of text you quoted.

 

Why does your system refuse to acknowledge that it is almost impossible to match the point production actually produced with the point production you have assigned to that draft position?

 

Because there is no need whatsoever to acknowledge any such thing. It does not matter at all that it is difficult to guess the actual production of a player before the season. It is possible to some extent, and is the primary subject of what we all do here. The draft system in place is unfair, because it inherently favors the early picks by giving them better possibilities in the most important first round, and the priority to lock them in with nothing any other owner can do about it. That someone can mess that pick up does not matter, nor do random players failing to perform: both can affect any position, and so are simply discounted. The person still could have picked a player who would have given them an insane advantage, and at the same time denied that player to all other teams. That it is even possible to gain that advantage with the right pick demonstrates that the system is unfair because, should a drafter do that, he then gains a nearly insurmountable advantage, one which if he picks decently the rest of the draft, no other teams can reasonably hope to overcome. If everyone had the same shot to pickup those insane guys (as in auction) then there wouldn't be a problem, but the pecking order dictates that someone always has a better chance to reel in that #1 guy, and that's not even remotely fair.

 

Another way to look at it is there are say 4 guys who could reasonably be the top stud RB in '07. With a top 4 pick, I've got a 1/4 chance of getting the right guy who will give my team that astronomical advantage. The rest of the guys will likely give a lot of advantage too (note in '06 SJax at 3rd best still made his team advantaged over the later teams) but one of the 4 will be best at it. Even if I don't pick the right one, though, someone in those top 4 will. That top stud guy never comes from the late first round. So it doesn't matter that I (in say the 2 spot) may not pick the right guy - someone in the top 4 or so invariably will. That means one of those top teams will always end up with a huge advantage, an advantage that is not even possible for a team later then 4th position in this example to ever get a shot at. If the guy who happened to take that stud then drafts competently for the duration, as well as the guys near the end of the round, they still have absolutely no hope of getting even close to whoever ended up with that stud. The simple fact that they cannot possibly make picks good enough to make up for whoever that stud turns out to be is more than enough to declare the system absolutely broken. It is obvious that:

 

1) The top stud each year gives his team too much of an advantage for snake drafting to make up for if you assume the stud taker is as competent as the other owners.

2) The top stud is always plucked from the top of the 1st rd, meaning the bottom of the first round is at perpetual disadvantage because he is never on the board for them to pick.

 

Those two simple facts alone are more than enough to demonstrate my point.

 

ETA: Are you going to list the draft results from your league so we can start an on going analysis and determine if your theory is correct or bullsh@t?

 

For the record, my leagues do not use backfill. Have you considered the possibility that I'm arguing my point strictly because I have done math and found backfill better and snake inferior, as opposed to having some personal stake in the matter? Perhaps you should.

 

Please ,the only thing you proved is your not a math major. Mathmatically the serpentine draft works, just because YOU think players "values" are such, doesnt make them so. You make crappy assumptions then act as if it is hard data. Your data and assumptions are crap.

 

Actually, Rat, it does make them so. Value is a precisely defined mathematical quantity for each player. Given their performance in a season, their value is not at all subject to interpretation. It's a statistic just as much as the number of catches a guy made. In fact, there's no assumption at all there, just plain old math. I know exactly how much a guy in '06 outperformed the benchmark player at his position, and therefore I know exactly what FFPt advantage he gave to his team. Sum up those calculated values, and you have an exact measurement of how much each team outscored the baseline in '06. They're not guesses or assumptions, the numbers I calculated represent the exact production advantages of each team. If one team arrives at 382 value and another at 187, the first team would've outscored the second by exactly 195 fantasy points during the course of the '06 season. Once you realize that, it's amazingly simple, and the perfect measure of advantage in a draft.

 

Another interesting tidbit is that I can add the total baseline FFPts for all the 0-value starters back into each value total if you want, and then you'd have the total FFPts that each team produced in '06. So as you can see value comes directly from production, which may have been a source of some confusion. I don't simply pull values out of my ass, they are precisely calculated by a known and standard method.

 

Also I am disturbed that again people are trying to back up the snake draft by saying it "mathematically works." I asked for the math that says it works for fantasy football... and all I get is more canned ham explanations. I gave you the math that shows you it doesn't work. Now give me the math that shows it does. I'm quite certain no one can since everyone simply keeps repeating the words and not giving me math, but I will continue challenging on this point to make it brutally clear that you are all grasping at straws instead of actually doing math. Your words do not make it mathematically fair, only math can demonstrate that. Given that I've already done the math you'd need to use and determined the system horribly biased through it, all I can say is good luck giving me what is required.

 

I just flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads 7 times. Therefore you have a 70% chance of coming up heads when you flip a coin. I have hard evidence as you can see. We should change the way overtime is determined in the NFL because all you have to do is call heads and you have a huge advantage. I have proven this with the data above.

 

 

Uh... you're an idiot? I think that's what you said. I haven't flipped coins, or even done anything that I claimed was random or pseudo-random. Coin flips and fantasy drafts have nothing in common that I can see. If I may make a suggestion though, you might want to try a little harder next time.

[KSB2424 3,148]

There has to be value assigned to each spot.

So who assigns this "value" for each spot in a draft for a season that has not even played yet? You, me, fftoday, Nostradamus?

 

And to give the 1st pick the chance to also have the 24th and 25th while the 12th only gets 12th, 13, 36 that's just not fair since the third round is where you'll find a lot of your stud picks.

 

Since you are stating the first 4 rounds the least you could do is post the picks correctly. The first pick in a standard snake draft gets the 1, 24, 25, and 48th pick compared to the 12, 13,36, and 37th pick. ETA: Ah-ha, I see where you went back and edited your post.

 

How many ways can you guys re-invent the wheel? I guess I should also make a "banzi coin" that has 5 sides. 2 heads and 3 tails to make it fair. You're right this is settled.

[tubby_mcgee 700]

Change to a snake draft it's the only way to go.

 

 

We used to use a snake draft for about 4 years. Then we put it up to a vote, and it was decided we'd go with a serpentine draft instead.

[vardaski 0]

fozzy i'm not going to start calling you a moron because you have a nice theoretical model BUT IT DOESN'T WORK IN REALITY

(All quotes with the exception of one are fozzy's)

 

"The draft system in place is unfair, because it inherently favors the early picks by giving them better possibilities in the most important first round, and the priority to lock them in with nothing any other owner can do about it."

PROVE IT WITH REAL DATA! NOT A SYSTEM YOU CREATED.

 

I had Lt last year. I took him with the 3rd pick but he was my number 1 on my board. I actually got it right for once! But I still didn't win. By your system I had a decided advantage because I got the actual number 1 right plus I got to pick 2 spots before the other 2 guys that got it wrong so I should really be ahead based on your system as each pick drops off in value. Sorry didn't actually happen though.

 

You argue steven jackson was the 3rd pick LAST YEAR but from what I recall LT was still the average 3rd pick so that tosses that fact out.

 

"Why does your system refuse to acknowledge that it is almost impossible to match the point production actually produced with the point production you have assigned to that draft position?" (not fozzy's quote and a great point)

 

"Because there is no need whatsoever to acknowledge any such thing. It does not matter at all" (this is the worst scientific arguement ever)

 

Umm yes it does matter because your whole point is you have proved that these points "you've assigned" prove that there is a decided advantage to draft near the front but IN REALITY as you've semi-acknowledgeda is the fact that you base your whole premise and statistics on DOESN'T WORK OUT IN REALITY.

 

"That someone can mess that pick up does not matter, nor do random players failing to perform: both can affect any position, and so are simply discounted"

Umm yes it does really matter because i deal in REALITY AND I WANT THE MONEY. And this ERROR IN LOGIC is likely to occur well over 50% of the time. Maybe you play in a league of robots that have the stats you put forth down path but everyone else does not so what you are really saying is Fozzy's system works until people start thinking and then it fall apart at the seams. You see there are so many variables out there like you keep saying that the serpentine method does work as well. You seem to "simply discount" things when it doesn't work into your arguement which is BAD SCIENCE. I'll give you the fact you do a great job with statistics in some cases but you continue to not have any actual proof that this back fill system levels the field IN REALITY which means it is like my friend, a stats major, once said statistics is like number focking you can prove anything you really want to if you set your mind to it.

 

In one way I'm on your side. You see I want a more level field when I get stuck with the late first round pick. I've asked for serpentine results that prove my insignificant sample size wrong but no one else has shown any. I'm sure they are out there too that is the funny thing so find them to back up your arguement. But just what if they show the same thing that it is very difficult to win or even place in the top 3 from the #1 or 2 pick. I'm sure you'll continue to discount it.

So I'll try a different approach someone show me results from the backfill method that they have ACTUALLY USED IN THE PAST. What if it just shows that the late picks have an even further advantage. "Simply discount it"

 

"The person still could have picked a player who would have given them an insane advantage, and at the same time denied that player to all other teams. That it is even possible to gain that advantage with the right pick demonstrates that the system is unfair because, should a drafter do that, he then gains a nearly insurmountable advantage, one which if he picks decently the rest of the draft, no other teams can reasonably hope to overcome. If everyone had the same shot to pickup those insane guys (as in auction) then there wouldn't be a problem, but the pecking order dictates that someone always has a better chance to reel in that #1 guy, and that's not even remotely fair."

 

Ya but they didn't because people reach for players or simply discount players or have a problem with bye weeks so they choose someone else, or acutally get it right only to trade with a late round pick because they have a player injured or don't like their pick. ONCE AGAIN SO MANY VARIABLES YOU CAN'T PREDICT.

 

"With a top 4 pick, I've got a 1/4 chance of getting the right guy who will give my team that astronomical advantage."

 

Umm now you are even doing bad math (which crazily enough I complemented you on earlier) and you should quit while you're ahead. 12 teams top 4 pick = 1/3 of a chance of getting it right. Which is actually better. Still there is a 2/3 chance of getting it wrong which is 66% which is better than your chance or 75% if you want to do bad math. I'll take those odds every time.

 

"That top stud guy never comes from the late first round. So it doesn't matter that I (in say the 2 spot) may not pick the right guy - someone in the top 4 or so invariably will."

 

Never???? I bet you don't have data to back this up. And I bet if I took the time to look over the past 5 years that I can prove this wrong.

 

"That means one of those top teams will always end up with a huge advantage, an advantage that is not even possible for a team later then 4th position in this example to ever get a shot at."

 

I've already proved this wrong in my insignificant sample size.

 

"1) The top stud each year gives his team too much of an advantage for snake drafting to make up for if you assume the stud taker is as competent as the other owners. (HAPPENS ALL THE TIME WITH COMPETENT OWNERS)

2) The top stud is always plucked from the top of the 1st rd, meaning the bottom of the first round is at perpetual disadvantage because he is never on the board for them to pick.

 

Those two simple facts alone are more than enough to demonstrate my point."

 

Yes because Fozzy says so yet he has still shown no "REAL LIFE EVIDENCE" One last point: one or even two studs does not make a winning team in fantasy football.

 

I'm not even bothering to read the rest of your post because so much of the rest of it is crap like someone else posted so succinctly without proof. You rail on others but the more you talk the more you prove that you might also be wrong. I'm not saying I'm definitely right that a serpentine draft is better but I like my side better than yours. Your science ie.. premise and main arguement are wrong. I'm a science teacher and I feel like I've failed when I read your conclusion.

 

sorry everyone else for the long post

[Bert 1,128]

Also I am disturbed that again people are trying to back up the snake draft by saying it "mathematically works." I asked for the math that says it works for fantasy football... and all I get is more canned ham explanations. I gave you the math that shows you it doesn't work. Now give me the math that shows it does. I'm quite certain no one can since everyone simply keeps repeating the words and not giving me math, but I will continue challenging on this point to make it brutally clear that you are all grasping at straws instead of actually doing math. Your words do not make it mathematically fair, only math can demonstrate that. Given that I've already done the math you'd need to use and determined the system horribly biased through it, all I can say is good luck giving me what is required.

 

You didn't give me a probability. You gave me a bunch of words. If it is finite, as you say, you should be able to produce a single number not a paragraph of text.

 

I'm not saying a serpentine works mathematically. I'm saying your system is probably not any better. But without comparing actual draft results of the two systems it is nothing more than an unproven theory.

 

You did some arithmetic and know historically the points that will be scored out of each draft position. Where your system fails is the probability of you or any one being able to pick the players that will produce those perfect points is almost impossible. So you are assigning value based on an out come that is unlikely to happen. You have to be able to match the numbers you came up with with the actual players picked otherwise you are randomly assigning value.

 

I know you think the limiting of access to certain players gives teams drafting early an unfair advantage and your system helps correct the problem. My contention is the probability of picking the top 10, 20, 100 scorers in order is so small and the standard deviation at each position so large that your draft system, like the serpentine, will produce random actual point totals through out the 12 draft positions. Put simply, the large variability in a players point production is so great that it will over come the advantage early draft positions theoretically have.

 

I will not convince you of this so I proposed comparing the two draft systems side by side. This way we will have actual results to analyze, however, you seem unwilling to do this for some reason.

[flushmonkii 0]

So who assigns this "value" for each spot in a draft for a season that has not even played yet? You, me, fftoday, Nostradamus?

 

The values are inherent. At the first spot, you get the whole player pool to choose from. Out of the 15-20 RBs that are even capable (some a lot more than others) then being the number one RB, you get to choose first. There is value in that right. The 12th pick loses those 11 picks. Why do you think fantasy tools that analyze draft picks give so much value to the first picks. For someone to trade for the first couple of picks, they have to give a lot. Why do you think NFL teams have to give up sooooo much just to move up in draft spots in the first round? No one knows if Brady Quinn is going to be that great but Cleavland thought so and gave up a lot. Same with other blockbuster trades in the past.

 

Since you are stating the first 4 rounds the least you could do is post the picks correctly. The first pick in a standard snake draft gets the 1, 24, 25, and 48th pick compared to the 12, 13,36, and 37th pick. ETA: Ah-ha, I see where you went back and edited your post.

 

How many ways can you guys re-invent the wheel? I guess I should also make a "banzi coin" that has 5 sides. 2 heads and 3 tails to make it fair. You're right this is settled.

 

Oh yeah, sorry for editing my post a minute after posting and before you even replied. Heaven forbid I edit it. Why dont you just go ahead and post all the draft picks why your at it? In the fifth round first gets 49!!! and 12th gets 60!!! It's pretty well known that the studly players are in the first three rounds. No one is going to deny that (not counting out the few gems who are found later in the draft).

 

If the serpentine draft was so fair why do you think the major cash leagues (the ones where hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of dollars) are on the line are moving away from it? Cause it places a disadvantage if your in the last couple of spots. Serpentine has been ingrained so much in fantasy owners head that it seems blasphemy to move away from it. Let it go.

[Fozzy4 0]

PROVE IT WITH REAL DATA! NOT A SYSTEM YOU CREATED.

 

I didn't create any system, I used the real numbers from last year. The only other thing I did was to demonstrate what happens if you assume all owners have identical drafting skill, which is necessary in any well-designed test of a drafting order. It just so happens that making them perfect is the easiest way to achieve that. It doesn't matter that owners in reality typically don't pick perfectly, because without foreknowledge of the season, those misses are equally likely on any pick and thus equally likely to affect any player and any team. I acknowledge that those things will randomly affect the actual outcomes during the year, but those random events will likewise be the cause of those differences, and therefore have no place in testing the drafting method.

 

Let's draw an analogy. I've got 12 guys together, and we're going to pick a bunch of trees out of a given forest. The object is to pick a set of trees with the most combined age. There's a catch though - we're coming back in a year to settle the bet. At that time, you can only count the trees you picked if they are standing, at which point we'll cut them down and discover their real ages. Let's say 10 trees each is the number we'll pick. We all know a little something about trees, so we know the taller and broader ones are most likely to be the oldest. We also know from looking around the forest that the really big trees (which we think are really old) are very rare. They burn down, are stunted from not getting enough light, get struck by lightning... lots of things contribute, but in the end there are only a few trees that are truly old. After those there are some pretty big trees, but considerably more of them. Then we have trees that are pretty average, and there are lots of those, they're easy to find. In general we know the younger you look, the easier it is to find a tree that is that age.

 

How, then, can we determine a fair way to pick trees? If we use a snake method to pick them, it is very clear that the guys who get a shot to take the trees that are really big have a decided advantage. By the time the last guy picks his first tree, the best tree available isn't that much better than the next 12 that guys are likely to pick out. It doesn't sound very fair.

 

I know, I know... right now you're saying "but what about all that other stuff you mentioned?" Sure, trees will burn down, get struck by lightning, etc, in the year we wait to check on them. Also, some guys will discover that their trees are older or younger than they thought once they finally cut them down to check. That doesn't change the fact that the first guy has a big advantage because he got to pick the tree that looked the oldest, though. The point is that guessing the age of a tree is just like projecting player stats, and the random things that will kill trees are just like injuries. There's no way to know which trees (and players) are actually bigger or smaller than they look, just like there's no way to know which of them will be cut down by the various perils they face. That being the case, there is clear advantage in picking first. That first tree could burn down, but it's got the same chance to do so as everyone else's trees. It could also be younger than you think, but again, so could everyone else's trees. All those things are equally likely for any tree (or player) and thus while they do alter the actual results, they are not linked to the draft system at all and therefore do not matter when discussing it. Put simply, to discuss the fairness of a draft system, you can only discuss things actually caused by it: the distribution of potential production. It's not tied to any of the things that alter that production, and so they are inconsequential when discussing it. As I said they will and do alter results, but are as likely to help the favored teams as hinder them, and therefore are only a source of variance, not of changing the average outcome.

 

I had Lt last year. I took him with the 3rd pick but he was my number 1 on my board. I actually got it right for once! But I still didn't win. By your system I had a decided advantage because I got the actual number 1 right plus I got to pick 2 spots before the other 2 guys that got it wrong so I should really be ahead based on your system as each pick drops off in value. Sorry didn't actually happen though.

 

Did you go to the playoffs? Championships aren't the only measure of advantage, and frankly are a bit too narrow to really see how production is distributed by a draft method. How many top half teams made playoffs in your league, and how many bottom half? That would at least give a general comparison of top versus bottom performance. Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but you definitely did have an advantage picking LT2 last year. Almost every team that did made their playoffs, and as I said before that fact speaks of unfairness. In a 12 team league with 8 playoff spots, the LT2 team would miss playoffs 4 times out of 12 (i.e. 1/3) if the draft system was fair: the draft would be balanced, and each team has an equal chance to place in a given position if a draft is fair. It would essentially become dumb luck which team beat the others. There's no way 1/3 of the LT2 teams missed the playoffs in such leagues. A fair draft system would also see top and bottom half teams make playoffs at an identical rate, yet that has not been my observation.

 

You argue steven jackson was the 3rd pick LAST YEAR but from what I recall LT was still the average 3rd pick so that tosses that fact out.

 

Go read it again. Actually, I said SJax was the 3rd best last year, and would've been picked third in a perfect draft. Neither has any bearing on his actual ADP during '06 drafts.

 

Umm yes it does really matter because i deal in REALITY AND I WANT THE MONEY. And this ERROR IN LOGIC is likely to occur well over 50% of the time. Maybe you play in a league of robots that have the stats you put forth down path but everyone else does not so what you are really saying is Fozzy's system works until people start thinking and then it fall apart at the seams. You see there are so many variables out there like you keep saying that the serpentine method does work as well. You seem to "simply discount" things when it doesn't work into your arguement which is BAD SCIENCE. I'll give you the fact you do a great job with statistics in some cases but you continue to not have any actual proof that this back fill system levels the field IN REALITY which means it is like my friend, a stats major, once said statistics is like number focking you can prove anything you really want to if you set your mind to it.

 

I hope you didn't just say that you think random injuries and player over-/under-performance can be used to justify snake drafting as viable in spite of how it obviously distributes production. That would be pretty silly, to claim that random factors could be used to justify the fairness of a draft method.

 

"With a top 4 pick, I've got a 1/4 chance of getting the right guy who will give my team that astronomical advantage."

 

Umm now you are even doing bad math (which crazily enough I complemented you on earlier) and you should quit while you're ahead. 12 teams top 4 pick = 1/3 of a chance of getting it right. Which is actually better. Still there is a 2/3 chance of getting it wrong which is 66% which is better than your chance or 75% if you want to do bad math. I'll take those odds every time.

 

No no no. It's 1/4 because the top player doesn't come from the whole first round, he comes from the top 4. I said 4 guys were likely to make it as the best RB, and they go in the first four picks. That means, since I have one of those picks, I have a 1/4 shot of getting that guy that really is the best. The whole point is that I have a 1/4 chance of getting him, and everyone past pick 5 has a 0 chance because he went in the top 4.

 

"That top stud guy never comes from the late first round. So it doesn't matter that I (in say the 2 spot) may not pick the right guy - someone in the top 4 or so invariably will."

 

Never???? I bet you don't have data to back this up. And I bet if I took the time to look over the past 5 years that I can prove this wrong.

 

I have plenty of observations, from anyone who's played fantasy football. If you can prove a statistically significant trend to the contrary, though, I'll mail you a cookie, not to mention adjust my work.

 

"That means one of those top teams will always end up with a huge advantage, an advantage that is not even possible for a team later then 4th position in this example to ever get a shot at."

 

I've already proved this wrong in my insignificant sample size.

 

Which is not proof at all, since it is an insignificant sample size. Just so we're clear, insignificant means "does not matter."

 

Yes because Fozzy says so yet he has still shown no "REAL LIFE EVIDENCE" One last point: one or even two studs does not make a winning team in fantasy football.

 

Don't need it. I've given proof that with all players making equally skilled picks, the later teams are at a big disadvantage. That's more than enough.

 

As for studs, no they don't make a winning team, they just make a team with a better chance to win, which again is inherent advantage. The studs themselves are an inherent advantage, and one that I have shown snake drafting does not adequately compensate other teams for.

 

You didn't give me a probability. You gave me a bunch of words. If it is finite, as you say, you should be able to produce a single number not a paragraph of text.

 

What you quoted wasn't even directed at you, Bert, it was a response to someone else. Thus my quoting of their text, not yours. Oy.

[KSB2424 3,148]

I didn't create any system, I used the real numbers from last year.

I stopped reading right here.

 

You used last years numbers as "proof" to imply that a snake draft method should be modified. This is based on the assumption that this years performance will mirror last years performance. Which may or may not be the case, thus a fallacy. Therefore your theory is flawed from the start. HTH.

[Mangatang 0]

I stopped reading right here.

 

You used last years numbers as "proof" to imply that a snake draft method should be modified. This is based on the assumption that this years performance will mirror last years performance. Which may or may not be the case, thus a fallacy. Therefore your theory is flawed from the start. HTH.

 

Fozzy, I applaud your work. You and I are in complete agreement (along with about half the other posters on this thread).

 

The other half are, well, stubborn and closed-minded. Sometimes there's just no way to cram logic into people's thick skulls. Their loss.

[Fozzy4 0]

I stopped reading right here.

 

You used last years numbers as "proof" to imply that a snake draft method should be modified. This is based on the assumption that this years performance will mirror last years performance. Which may or may not be the case, thus a fallacy. Therefore your theory is flawed from the start. HTH.

 

What is the alternative? To assume that the breakdown in this year will fall such that it somehow makes snake drafting fair? I'm sorry, but once I see evidence that it wasn't fair last year, I will continue to assume it isn't this year until you provide proof that it is. Having established the previous year's situation, the burden falls on you to prove that it will be fair this year, not on me to prove that it won't. I have the upper hand because last year it wasn't fair. Feel free to try to prove that the status quo won't carry into this year, though, if you can.

[KSB2424 3,148]

What is the alternative? To assume that the breakdown in this year will fall such that it somehow makes snake drafting fair? I'm sorry, but once I see evidence that it wasn't fair last year, I will continue to assume it isn't this year until you provide proof that it is. Having established the previous year's situation, the burden falls on you to prove that it will be fair this year, not on me to prove that it won't. I have the upper hand because last year it wasn't fair. Feel free to try to prove that the status quo won't carry into this year, though, if you can.

I understand what you are doing, and your theory does not go without merit. However, for just a minute, try and get your head out of all the numbers you are plugging in and think about the theory.

 

Before you go and try to reply with a bunch of numbers just hear me out with an analogy.

 

Mathematically, with all things constant, a coin flip is completely fair (50/50).

Mathematically, with all things constant, a snake draft order with even numbered rounds is exactly fair. If you added up the total number of draft picks for each round they would all equal the same.

 

I flip a coin 10 times and 7 times it came up heads. This is actual data that was observed.

I plugged in last years numbers, and the first 3 picks had a significant advantage over the last 3 picks. This is actual data that was observed.

 

Now answer me this.

 

Because I have data that shows 7 out of 10 times you get heads when you flip a coin, should we modify a coin to give it more weight towards landing on tails to make it fairer? Or could the data I observed be misleading?

 

Because I have data that shows last year the first 3 picks had an advantage, should we modify a snake draft to give it more weight towards the last three picks to make it fairer? Or could the data I observed be misleading?

[Mangatang 0]

I understand what you are doing, and your theory does not go without merit. However, for just a minute, try and get your head out of all the numbers you are plugging in and think about the theory.

 

Before you go and try to reply with a bunch of numbers just hear me out with an analogy.

 

Mathematically, with all things constant, a coin flip is completely fair (50/50).

Mathematically, with all things constant, a snake draft order with even numbered rounds is exactly fair. If you added up the total number of draft picks for each round they would all equal the same.

 

I flip a coin 10 times and 7 times it came up heads. This is actual data that was observed.

I plugged in last years numbers, and the first 3 picks had a significant advantage over the last 3 picks. This is actual data that was observed.

 

Now answer me this.

 

Because I have data that shows 7 out of 10 times you get heads when you flip a coin, should we modify a coin to give it more weight towards landing on tails to make it fairer? Or could the data I observed be misleading?

 

Because I have data that shows last year the first 3 picks had an advantage, should we modify a snake draft to give it more weight towards the last three picks to make fairer? Or could the data I observed be misleading?

 

So you are disputing the average auction values that are given to the players this year? Auction values represent the best estimate of a player's worth (compared to the other players). Do you totally disagree that the top teir players are valued at a higher increment that the lower teired players? Do you think the difference between the 1st and 12th player should be the same as between the 13th and 24th just becuase they are the same number of spots apart? Every indication (last year's numbers, this year's predictions, year before last's numbers) indicate that the drop-off between 1st and 12th is bigger than the dropoff between 13th and 24th.

[joelmrut 4]

The problem is he used one year's worth of data to prove a point. Next year, will it show that it favored the people picking 3, 4 and 5? Or 6, 7 and 8?

 

To compare it to the coin flip analogy, it would be like flipping the coin once and determine the facts off of that one flip.

 

All he has proved is that last year and last year alone, the snake method favored the people at the front of the draft.

 

One question, what the fock is the point of getting the first pick, if you don't have some sort of advantage? Maybe the problem is in how you set up the divisions. If the front of the draft has such an advantage, then maybe the first five teams should be in one division, and the last five in the other.

 

Last year, in my big $ redraft league, we used the snake draft. The divisions were split based on where you drafted. 1 through 4 in one division, 5-8 in another and 9-12 in the last. The team that drafted LT (3rd pick) made the playoffs. Unfair advantage? I think not, because teams 5 through 8 all made the playoffs and one of those teams won the Super Bowl. So my theory from that data leads me to believe that teams 5 through 8 had the advantage last year.

[Fozzy4 0]

The problem is he used one year's worth of data to prove a point. Next year, will it show that it favored the people picking 3, 4 and 5? Or 6, 7 and 8?

 

To compare it to the coin flip analogy, it would be like flipping the coin once and determine the facts off of that one flip.

 

All he has proved is that last year and last year alone, the snake method favored the people at the front of the draft.

 

You may of course feel free to contrast my work with the scores of other work that demonstrate that snake drafting is fair when applied to fantasy football. My point, of course, is that my data on 1 year is currently the most data compiled that points in any direction on the matter, so by default it is the standard in the absence of contravening evidence. You can dislike it all you want, but it is certainly more solid than the complete lack of any evidence suggesting that snake drafting is or ever was fair in fantasy football. In short, I have one year of work in my favor, where there is none to support the opposition, so I win until contrary statistical evidence is demonstrated.

[Bert 1,128]

You may of course feel free to contrast my work with the scores of other work that demonstrate that snake drafting is fair when applied to fantasy football. My point, of course, is that my data on 1 year is currently the most data compiled that points in any direction on the matter, so by default it is the standard in the absence of contravening evidence. You can dislike it all you want, but it is certainly more solid than the complete lack of any evidence suggesting that snake drafting is or ever was fair in fantasy football. In short, I have one year of work in my favor, where there is none to support the opposition, so I win until contrary statistical evidence is demonstrated.

 

You haven't provided proof that one draft system is more fair than another. All you have shown is the point differenial between highest FF point producer and the 96th point producer in 2006.

 

Provide your draft results and I will provide proof that you are wrong, or I may prove you are correct, by comparing the two drafts at the end of the season. This is the only way to test whether or not your draft system is more fair than a serpentine. It is really simple put up or shut up.

[joelmrut 4]

You may of course feel free to contrast my work with the scores of other work that demonstrate that snake drafting is fair when applied to fantasy football. My point, of course, is that my data on 1 year is currently the most data compiled that points in any direction on the matter, so by default it is the standard in the absence of contravening evidence. You can dislike it all you want, but it is certainly more solid than the complete lack of any evidence suggesting that snake drafting is or ever was fair in fantasy football. In short, I have one year of work in my favor, where there is none to support the opposition, so I win until contrary statistical evidence is demonstrated.

 

 

ONE YEAR! One year's worth of data in a year where the top scorer was so far above the rest of the pack.

 

Using 2003 data, (why not, it proves my theory); The difference between the number one player and the number ten player (using my leagues scoring) was 46 points. The difference from number eleven to number twenty was 69 points. So using only one year's data, I can say that the teams drafting at the beginning of the snake draft have only a slight advantage that it was debatable and easy correctible through team management through out the season.

 

Team 1 – 1075

Team 2 – 1080

Team 3 – 1068

Team 4 – 1058

Team 5 – 1054

Team 6 – 1055

Team 7 – 1061

Team 8 – 1070

Team 9 – 1066

Team 10 – 1064

 

 

So there is now a second year’s worth of data showing the advantage of drafting first is dependent on how much better the top few players are in any given year. One year (like last year), it might be a huge advantage. Another year, it might not be.

[Mangatang 0]

ONE YEAR! One year's worth of data in a year where the top scorer was so far above the rest of the pack.

 

Using 2003 data, (why not, it proves my theory); The difference between the number one player and the number ten player (using my leagues scoring) was 46 points. The difference from number eleven to number twenty was 69 points. So using only one year's data, I can say that the teams drafting at the beginning of the snake draft have only a slight advantage that it was debatable and easy correctible through team management through out the season.

 

Team 1 – 1075

Team 2 – 1080

Team 3 – 1068

Team 4 – 1058

Team 5 – 1054

Team 6 – 1055

Team 7 – 1061

Team 8 – 1070

Team 9 – 1066

Team 10 – 1064

So there is now a second year’s worth of data showing the advantage of drafting first is dependent on how much better the top few players are in any given year. One year (like last year), it might be a huge advantage. Another year, it might not be.

 

Are you using player's total points in 2003, or are you using the VBD for them? If you are just using the total points, this comparison is meaningless, because you would have a lot of QB's ranked right up there with the top RB's. VBD numbers (or auction values) are the way to compare all players across positions.

[Mangatang 0]

You haven't provided proof that one draft system is more fair than another. All you have shown is the point differenial between highest FF point producer and the 96th point producer in 2006.

 

Provide your draft results and I will provide proof that you are wrong, or I may prove you are correct, by comparing the two drafts at the end of the season. This is the only way to test whether or not your draft system is more fair than a serpentine. It is really simple put up or shut up.

 

If you can not see the fallacy in this statement, then you are truly helpless to understand the concepts we're talking about. It doesn't matter what the ACTUAL results are for the 2007 season. What counts is the predicted value of the players going into the draft. Much as the ACTUAL outcome of a poker hand doesn't matter, it's how you played it given the information you had at the time you made the decision. If you cannot understand this basic concept, then you will never grasp our reasoning.

[Bert 1,128]

If you can not see the fallacy in this statement, then you are truly helpless to understand the concepts we're talking about. It doesn't matter what the ACTUAL results are for the 2007 season. What counts is the predicted value of the players going into the draft. Much as the ACTUAL outcome of a poker hand doesn't matter, it's how you played it given the information you had at the time you made the decision. If you cannot understand this basic concept, then you will never grasp our reasoning.

 

Do you determine your league champion based on predicted points or actual points?

 

We are not going to use actual numbers to determine if the draft is fair we are going to use my extra special made up numbers. Good luck with that.

[joelmrut 4]

Are you using player's total points in 2003, or are you using the VBD for them? If you are just using the total points, this comparison is meaningless, because you would have a lot of QB's ranked right up there with the top RB's. VBD numbers (or auction values) are the way to compare all players across positions.

 

I've just completed my analysis of snake drafting using 2003 actual stats. I calculated values using the traditional method (baseline of last starter at each position, using standard lineup of 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 DEF), then made perfect picks for each team through 8 rds (i.e. each took best value available for each pick).

 

So you can use actual numbers to prove yours and I can't?

[Bert 1,128]

So you can use actual numbers to prove yours and I can't?

 

No actual numbers you idiot! Only extra special made up numbers!

[KSB2424 3,148]

Hey Fozzy and Mangatang, quick question......

 

When you walk into a casino by a roulette wheel. If you look at the board and see that it has landed red 9 times in a row, what goes through your mind and why?

[Mangatang 0]

Hey Fozzy and Mangatang, quick question......

 

When you walk into a casino by a roulette wheel. If you look at the board and see that it has landed red 9 times in a row, what goes through your mind and why?

 

Quick answer... You still have a 47.4% chance to hit either red or black (on a double 00 wheel). The wheel has no memory.

 

Remember, you're talking to a chemical engineer and a professional poker player here. I know odds and statistics.

[Mangatang 0]

 

Do you determine your league champion based on predicted points or actual points?

 

We are not going to use actual numbers to determine if the draft is fair we are going to use my extra special made up numbers. Good luck with that.

 

My god. I don’t know where to start.

 

Again, the actual outcome doesn’t justify making bad picks when you draft. If Michael Pittman ends up winning the rushing title this year, does that mean it was a dumb play not to draft him? NO! You know why? Because the odds of him having a year like that are astronomical. And anyone who bets against astronomical odds (without getting the proper payout in return) is crazy.

 

Just like in poker. I flopped top set on a rainbow board (Me = AcAh, Board = As9d6c). My opponent only has middle pair (9c2d). I call his all-in bet. He catches runner-runner 9’s (about 0.1% chance on the flop). Now, he beats me with quad 9’s, but does that make my call on the flop a bad play??????????

 

Now do you see what I mean when I say the ACTUAL outcome does not determine whether a play was correct or not? What matters is the estimated probability at the time that the decision is made.

 

My god. I don’t know where to finish.