spiderm4tt interview (fantasyfootballstrategist.co.uk)

[liquidfootball2]

You can quite easily get an idea of the thoughts of some of the best players who frequent the ffs site.

[Mav3rick]

You can quite easily get an idea of the thoughts of some of the best players who frequent the ffs site.

But then I'd have to frequent the FFS site, and I'm insanely jealous that I didn't implement that site before them so visiting it is painful

[Stemania]

You can quite easily get an idea of the thoughts of some of the best players who frequent the ffs site.

But then I'd have to frequent the FFS site, and I'm insanely jealous that I didn't implement that site before them so visiting it is painful

You'd also have to navigate their godawful comments system.

[ruudy]

I wondered if i was doing something wrong when i visited that website. Do they not enjoy discussion?

[hancockjr]

I don't play FPL but read this with interest (to see if it can be applied to TFF).

HOHO sounds like rotating / daisy-chaining strikers to me and is a very sensible move for your saved, extra transfers. Stuff like that can gain you loads of points - not sure why it is called high risk as it is also high gain and you are jumping on the favourite horse for the race each time.

This is only possible with safe, dull choices elsewhere to minimise that need to tinker in the less high reward positions. It always amazes me how so many posts on here (TFF and FPL) are fixating on tinkering cheap players who, relatively speaking, hardly matter - surely less in FPL where you can drop players.

You just need to calculate whether on average rotating your high scoring star striker will gain more points than tweaking your low scoring cheap players.

I like comparing to other games but do bear in mind the differences with TFF:

- FPL is "by gameweek" so you can't get the extra fixtures from big players
- Cheap players can lose you value in FPL, another reason to transfer
- You "have" to use transfers in FPL, else you lose them

[thesilkworm]

I wondered if i was doing something wrong when i visited that website. Do they not enjoy discussion?

Yeah it's truly awful. Such a shame as there's a lot of great content, but when I want to actually discuss something I'll always come here.

[Stemania]

One thing that seems obvious to me is that we could keep track of some of these types of situations and test them. If we define what we mean by differential and if we can agree on a few picks then we can easily see if it would be sensible on average to pick a "best differential" over our least favoured template pick, without any hindsight getting in the way.

I think the term 'differential' comes with too much baggage tbh. Whilst we'd like it to mean a low ownership player with a higher points potential than a similarly priced well-owned player, usually it's used on the forum as simply a low ownership player - and often a gambley one brought in to try to catch up a rival in the knowledge that it's probably not the best move but might work out.


Either way, the above is looking at it the wrong way round imo - I don't think you want to be looking at the list of 'template' picks and swapping the worst of them for the best low owned alternative (who we then call a differential) - I think at all times we should just be comparing all players regardless of ownership and simply picking the best ones. Generally speaking, the best picks will be well owned anyway (precisely because they are the best picks and everyone wants to own the best picks). There are inevitably going to be well owned player who are just 'false bandwaggons' or 'lucky, in form players' and so the best selection possible will likely always involve some lower ownership players. If they are better picks in their own right, they are better picks regardless of ownership. I don't really see why labeling them as 'differentials' adds anything. In fact....

In that regard I suppose I would say that DiffRatio is only as good as the number of good differentials - if there's only one good quality player with low ownership (Costa springs to mind right now) then maybe you should aim for a DiffRatio of 1-to-10.

....I would say that this is exactly why the whole DiffRatio thing is a misnomer. I think you are correct, but all you are really saying is that when there is only one 'differential' pick better than a template player you should only pick one. Well, that's exactly saying 'pick the best players regardless of ownership'. This is why I suggested spidey tenets 3) - 5) in it's place as I don't think DiffRatio is the best description of what that way of playing really entails - a way that spidey seems to have perfected.


In close calls when you have two similar players to choose from, one with high ownership and one with low (but both with extremely similar expected points) I do think there are two different strategies you could generally follow depending on your situation. When you're having a good season you could argue you should err towards higher ownership as a final decider for two reasons:

(a) We have to admit our own information/feeling (that we are going to base our decision on) may be wrong, skewed or incomplete. If what we see as a close call doesn't seem a close call to most top players (e.g., in terms of top 10k ownership) then it's much more likely that they are closer to the truth as a group than all of them are wrong and we are right. Given that it doesn't really matter in terms of expected points it seems an unnecessary risk to stubbornly assume we know more than everyone else. (It's worth stressing though, if you think a lower ownership player will outscore a well owned one, then of course you should probably just go with the lower ownership player).

(b) You want the variance between your scores and others around you to be low if you're defending a minileague - you want to make it as hard as possible for an opponent to catch up, and you do that by making sure you get as close to the amount of points you 'should' get from your picks. You want to minimise the risk of an unlucky spell (relative to you opponent) where you hit maximum negative variance from your expected score.

On the other hand, if you're playing catchup you could err towards the lower ownership player for the following reason:

(c) You probably want to increase variance as skill alone (just picking players wth the best possible combinned expected points) may not be enough to overhall a skillful player, but again, you should still always pick the player with the highest expected points regardless of ownership if one exists - this should be a last resort decider imo.

Personally I still think going with ownership is likely to be the best strategy generally speaking, as (a) would be by far the most important factor for me. In terms of how I play the game, I like to reduce the variance as much as possible as a rule. This is for the reason that I'd rather my skill level determined my final position as much as possible - I'd rather increase the variance when I think I genuinely think I have a better choice than the masses. When it comes to the close calls, I don't want to be lucky or unlucky - I just want to hit par on the close calls and give myself a chance of winning on the calls I don't think are so close. A good example is captaincy, if in a given week there are two very similar prospects, one with low ownership, both owned by me. I'd always err towards the well owned player because I just want to 'pass' on that week as much as I can, patiently waiting for the week when my low ownership player is genuinely the better option.

But, that might just be me, as I'd much rather finish top 10k every season than flick between 2k and 20k, or 1k and 50k year on year. This probably isn't a widespread view though, and how much variance a player is likely to be able to palate probably does have an noticeable effect on consistency of finishes, if probably not average finish.

That said, I have long been an advocate of using captaincy as a last resort to increase variance if chasing. If there are two options with very similar expected points, then going for the low ownership captain will give you the extra variance you want without losing out on average expected points - and you still own all the good players you want. Picking a lower ownership player just to be different will have the same effect on variance but almost certainly lower your expected points.

I suppose most managers would think the same though, and if a player they perceive as high quality also has low ownership then I think most of us will take the game by the horns and try to "Increase your variance from the template score" as CK puts it as we'd all think that our high quality differential would outscore some other template pick.

Here you would increase variance, but (similar to the ownership factor earlier) it seems to me kind of an irrelevant side effect - you're still just picking the best player you can regardless of ownership/variance, which I would view as most important in all but the extremely close calls.

[Stemania]

Finally, one thing in terms of any 'need' of low ownership players to create a level of variance. You see quite often people avoid the very popular players just because it will be impossible to catch up otherwise. Maybe you want to avoid one or more of the most popular current picks because you think your team is too similar to those you are chasing.

Well, less than 25% of teams in the top 10k own all of the current five most popular attacking picks

Hazard
Silva
Sánchez
Kane
Agüero

even though the latter two are owned by 97.0% and 94.7% respectively. Overall that number is less than 0.4% So, even if the five attacking players you think are the best picks happen to be the five most owned in the game you will gain on over 75% of the top 10k and over 99% of teams overall if you are correct. And moreover, we all actually have the chance to pick 11 players and subs.

Again, you should just pick who you think are the best players at all times imo.

[Aldershot Rejects]

Finally, one thing in terms of any 'need' of low ownership players to create a level of variance. You see quite often people avoid the very popular players just because it will be impossible to catch up otherwise. Maybe you want to avoid one or more of the most popular current picks because you think your team is too similar to those you are chasing.

Well, less than 25% of teams in the top 10k own all of the current five most popular attacking picks

Hazard
Silva
Sánchez
Kane
Agüero

even though the latter two are owned by 97.0% and 94.7% respectively. Overall that number is less than 0.4% So, even if the five attacking players you think are the best picks happen to be the five most owned in the game you will gain on over 75% of the top 10k and over 99% of teams overall if you are correct. And moreover, we all actually have the chance to pick 11 players and subs.

Again, you should just pick who you think are the best players at all times imo.

Good point. Those 5 have been the mainstays of my side over the past few weeks and my rank has improved considerably. To ignore well proven, consistent point scorers just because they are popular is unlikely to succeed as a tactic.

[The Dazzler]

You can quite easily get an idea of the thoughts of some of the best players who frequent the ffs site.

But then I'd have to frequent the FFS site, and I'm insanely jealous that I didn't implement that site before them so visiting it is painful

It's funny you say that. I was approached to be the 'pro' on a new fantasy football site a few years back. The 'business plan' was basically to steal all of FFSs content and then to monetize the new site by selling advertising.
I thought it was a ludicrous idea and declined.
Next thing you know, FFS gets involved with Paddy Power and then they start selling memberships and money is rolling in.
I still think this site has a better potential though, with the ability to engage in in-depth discussion.


As regards SpiderMatt, he really is one of a kind. He's a very brave manager and is totally prepared to go with what he feels is right rather than any received wisdom. And that's harder to do than it may sound.
He really has an excellent understanding of the FPL game and of football in general.
And always so generous with his time and advice.

[Billy Bongo]

I've been a fan of the hoho strategy since I read Spideys views on it, and it's helped me improve rank significantly. When City had no strikers it was clear Silva would be crucial yet his ownership remained stupidly low, the only reason being many players simply dismissed City as unlikely to score with no strikers or as in here wrapped themselves up in knots worrying about who would play where. ie we only want the guy in the hole and we don't know whether it will be Nasri or Silva so don't do it.

Well I'd been using the hoho for a while and was saving a midfield and striker slot for these situations and got lucky, but it was entirely the hoho concept that lead to it. Reading forums is great for quick and accurate news, particularly for figuring out complex fixture arrangements etc.

But for strategy there seems a heck of a lot of paralysis by analysis and over thinking.

What the better FPL players seem to do is cut through all that and actually see new ways of thinking.

Interesting only 25% of the top players own all the current top 5 players as detailed above.

Sanchez a good example. Why is no one hopping off Sanchez and onto Ozil? Probably because they are scared of losing money and being hurt by his ownership.

Hoho was a bit of an eye opener for me.

[MoSe]

Re: "hoho" strategy

with Santi I did a ho-ho-ho

Cazorla ho ho ho.png

(mostly at the wrong times )

[spiderm4tt]

Lots of good FPL discussion - great stuff FISOers!

In this post I will just address the 'Hop on, hop off' tactic. I will get round to joining in the 'Differentials/Lower ownership' debate very soon when time allows, I promise!

I apologise to all if I happen to repeat myself at times, and also for another long post, it's just that I want to try my best and help explain a little more/or better, especially to Stemania, why I feel that 'Hop on, Hop off' is; actually a strategy/tactic, is different from the suggested 'normal play', and is not a throwaway comment by myself!

Really nice of you to clarify. Maybe it's just me though, but I'm still not sure why it's different. I guess my issue would be that transferring out a player (even if in form) for another with better fixtures is still transferring in a player with a better chance of points in the short to mid term - which is exactly what is always done with transfers. We all transferred in Erikson this week (mostly for another premium) because we thought he'd get more points in the short term, even though his form was not great. Don't get me wrong though, it is still spot on as a piece of advice imo, just as you say not so unobvious.

In my head, the 'hop-on-hop-off tactic' would almost be better phrased as two different pieces of general advice:

As two pieces of advice I do think they are an extremely good starting point for those learning the game (and fundamental for experienced players playing to game well). My only slight issue is how the name of the 'tactic' has been quoted many times over the last few months (good for you btw), but each time it seemed just a label to somehow try to qualify a marginal transfer that the manager has already decided to make anyway. I don't really see it as a strategy - just really the way everyone should be and generally is playing.

I used the 'Hop on, hop off' term simply because it's the nearest or best way I could think of describing this type of FPL play. It's about 'hopping or jumping off' top quality players regardless of the players good form, but this player has a lesser fixture that particular GW (it's unlike doing a normal transfer out when a top quality explosive points potential player loses form/gets injured/need to free up funds/has a single GW as opposed to a DGW etc), and then 'hopping or jumping on' to a top quality explosive points potential form player, but who also has the good fixture that particular GW. You can then simply hop off and on to another top quality explosives points potential form & fixture player the following GW in order to try and anticipate and catch, or land on, the next big points haul that particular GW.

Basically you can call it what you like, or define it how you want, or on how you interpret/perceive it. We all perceive things differently at times - and it's not right or wrong. But to me 'Hop on, hop off' is a simple, clear and concise term for this particular strategy.


I have never known a FPL season that has so many attacking quality and potentially explosive front seven players to choose from (especially mids) between 8.0m and 10m, and that's without mentioning the obvious current quality more expensive explosive points potential picks of Hazard, Sanchez, Aguero, Costa, Sturridge, and also the lesser priced quality FPL picks of Kane, Austin, Siggy, and furthermore the decent points potential players, with possible hints of decent points potential at times, such as Downing, Mane, Henderson, Chadli, Ings, Berahino, Pelle, Tadic, to an extent (especially early on in season with some of these players).

Also top quality players such as ADM, Yaya, Walcott, Rooney, RvP & Falcoa, have not been firing this season, or at the moment anyway. If they do happen to 'catch fire' then this will only add even more explosive points potential players into the already crowded mix. You can not possibly own them all at once - therefore you can 'interchange' players 'aggressively' in and out of your team, and back in again, each or most GWs in hope to land on the form player with the better fixture that particular given GW.

Regarding the popular GW28 Eriksen transfer mentioned - this transfer was made by the masses mainly simply due to that he had a DGW28. This is nothing more than sound logical and obvious DGW play really that defines this particulr move as there wasn't many DGW28 players to choose from, never mind explosive DGW28 players.

If Eriksen had a single GW28 instead of a DGW28, then I'm sure not as many people would have brought him in, especially at the expense of other top quality mids they may have owned already, unless you wanted him genuinely for the time being, or for a change, or to free up money etc.........or you wanted to 'hop on, hop off him' for his single home game versus Swansea, which in foresight to that game, would be seen as probably an ok move to try and capitalise on a potential (and possibly overdue) points haul, which we all know Eriksen is capable of (albeit very sporadically).

Hopping then back off Eriksen (after his single GW were talking about) because he has a potentially 'difficult' away GW29 fixture at Man Utd, and then hopping back onto another top quality explosive points potential player who has a much favourable GW29 fixture would again seem a sound strategical play. While your doing this move, you may have also hopped off and back onto another top quality points potential explosive front seven player at the same time for a hit or two over the two GWs 28 & 29 (depending on how many FTs transfers you had GW28).

If you were not playing the hop on/off strategy, and playing the 'normal' transfer stragtegy, then those FPL managers without Eriksen going in a single GW28 (not double) may not have brought him in, and vice versa, those who brought him in may not transfer straight back out GW29 due to Eriksen having some decent fixtures after GW29 (Although it's feesable to say GW29 versus Utd away may well be decent nowadays!). So as you can see using this one example, they are different transfer strategies, or ways of playing.

To me the Hop on/off strategy is simple. It's different from the 'normal way' of playing transfers were lots of FPL managers, including myself, mainly pick as many as the obvious best points potential players as our budget allows and usually leave them in for a run of fixtures. This is not 'Hop on, hop off'. Hop on/off would be doing exactly what it is said to do - hopping on & off top quality players each GW, or most GWs, over a short period of time, to captilise on the weekly rotational good fixtures for the form players that particular GW. It's basically choosing 'Fixtures & Form' as much as you can over 'Form over Fixture' when your top players are away from home at a potentially tricky team. When choosing the best GW picks (including the best captain pick), 'Fixtures & Form' most often wins (in foresight) over 'Form over fixtures' strategy.

Like I've said previously, I would take 11 top quality form players along with the good potential fixture every single GW over top quality form players who have potentially tricky and tough games (fixtures over form). I suppose it's like the rotating goalkeepers tactic, where you rotate them each or most weeks based of both form & fixture, and not just form.

In my profession and studies (that's not FPL by the way!) I work a lot with likelihood ratios, as I need to do a lot of diagnostic and best outcome predicting based on probabilities of tests and measures, and in FPL having both the good form and also the good fixture just increases the likelihood of a better potential points return (or outcome) over having just the form, or having just the fixture. The probability/likelihood is greater that's all. It's very simple really. However, we are in danger of over thinking and over complicating things at times!

I suppose I may have misunderstood slightly, but to try to distinguish it from usual play as far as my perspective goes would it be fair to suggest that it is saying 'be a bit more aggressive with premium players than maybe you would normally be comfortable with '?

Yes I agree, it's fair to suggest that. It is an aggressive transfer tactic with premium players, but that's all it is - just a tactic. Yes it has elements of risk, maybe higher than normal, but if the risks are calculated as best they can be in foresight, then the rewards maybe great. And yes sure it takes you out of the FPL 'comfort zone', which is something I've never really been fond of! I usually like FPL comfort or stability, unless I'm chasing that is.

I have tried this Hop on/off play this season, but only a few times and had mixed results on points return outcome. I kind of chickened out using it most of the times as it's not very comfortable in not owning a heavy hitter that one particular GW, despite maybe having a tougher fixutre. But the way FPL is set up this season, and in relation to the Premier League itself in that there are significantly more top quality explosive attacking points players around, whoever player you don't own on each and any given GW can go big/explode with points, and you inevitably miss out, which maybe compounded by your player or players blanking. But that's FPL - especially this season.

I've played many different fantasy football games over the years and they do differ, even though the overall objective remains the same. When I get asked 'What is my top fantasy football tip?', I usually always reply with the same answer; Which is to play the fantasy football game the way it is set up to play, and play it in relation to the Premier League itself.

FPL, like the Premier League, is dynamic & not static - things change season to season, and also during the season - and even change week to week at times! It is therefore important to recognise & anticipate these changes asap so that you can be flexible and adaptable to the future and especially the present situation, to then set up your FPL team, tactics, strategy, plans, the best you possibly can accordingly. Therefore, the 'Hop on, hop off' (or whatever you want to call it!) strategy or tactical play, may best suit (at times) the way the FPL game is this season and in relation to the Premier League itself (due to changes).

If this Hop on/off style of play is what 'normally everyone else plays', or what 'everyone else should be playing', then I have to say that I have been playing a different game to what everyone is or should be playing! This is because until this season, I've never really adopted the Hop on/off play in the FPL. If anything I've been quiet the opposite in that I've preferred to keep a good solid stable base of the top quality explosive players regardless of fixture, as the 'form over fixtures' play with top quality players can work out well (but not all the time/or each GW).

It's interesting Murf mentioned using this tactic for rotating strikers in TFF. I played lots of TFF many years ago with some ok success. I do remember many times each season switching explosive top quality forwards in bursts (hopping on/off) to capitalise on good fixtures as well as their good form, whilst my rivals (which included the overall worlds top 100 a few times over the seasons and also in the top 10 one season) held off their transfers and played form over fixtures. I mainly applied the tactic at start of season to get a good start, during the heavy Christmas period when games come thick and fast, and around the FA Cup rounds (including replays) as FA Cup games counted, and then I hoped that my team could make it (or limp!) towards the end! It worked well at times too, but not always, as the limited transfers ran out earlier than I'd liked. Even though that's a TFF debate, it's still the same tactic in a way, but applied to suit the TFF game itself in relation to the PL at the time (Where Henry, Shearer, Andy Cole, VanNistelrooy, Fowler, Owen, Hasselbaink, Kevin Phillips, and many more forwards, were scoring plenty of goals. In other words we were spoilt for choice and we couldn't own them all at once obviously).

Finally, during the weekend of GW2 when I recognised how things in FPL and the Premier League had actually changed this season, I came immediately here to FISO to post this Hop on/off idea.....but I didn't have enough space to post it! Hence the article. The reason why it needed an article, and not just a paragraph or two on here, is that the whole Hop on/off concept, or theory, has to be taken into context with the whole FPL game itself & the Premier League, past, present, and future, to gain a better idea of it's true meaning and potential, and also to ask a viable question if this idea is useful or not to maximising your GW points potential score this season.

In the article I hypothesised that maybe to win FPL this season you may have to adopt this 'Hop on, hop off' stratgey at some points, or maybe adopt it more often than not, due to reasons explained. By the way, if anyone out there wants to do a PhD on this you're welcome to it!

Re: "hoho" strategy

with Santi I did a ho-ho-ho

Cazorla ho ho ho.png

(mostly at the wrong times )

Ha nice one MoSe, good effort. Anyway at least you've already started your PhD data collection!



Anyway, I best go before I start talking about team balance and ownership strategy. It's getting late here now - I'm 'hopping off' to bed!

[Stemania]

Excellent. I really look forward to reading the above properly in a couple of days time, but i've got the small matter of having to get myself from Newcastle Australia to Newcastle England in the next many hours.

[MoSe]

dig a tunnel thru the Core?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipodes# ... _antipodes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Archy]

I interpret this 'hoho' strategy as basically 'Having the balls to drop a player who has done well for you'

This is a tactic I sometimes employ myself (as do many others) to take advantage of fixtures. Naturally one does need to consider the impact on team value however, as it effectively means you are chasing a points gain now at the expense of longer-term buying power.

Eg I would be reluctant to do this with Hazard because it would cost me an additional £0.5m if I wanted to buy him back, but would be quite happy to do so with Silva as it would only cost me £0.1m extra to buy him back.

I think it's probably wise to try and keep one slot available in midfield and one slot in attack to use for this HoHo strategy. This means the core of your team (which should be packed with the best value players) remains largely the same, but you are hoho-ing with 2 attacking slots to take advantage of fixtures.

[Stemania]

That's a really well written reply there spidey.

I do agree with pretty much every fpl-related sentiment in your post, especially:

'What is my top fantasy football tip?', I usually always reply with the same answer; Which is to play the fantasy football game the way it is set up to play, and play it in relation to the Premier League itself.

However, I do still have a couple of reservations on HOHO (although, I also may just be repeating myself for which I also apologise - for this reason, please don't feel obligated to return another big reply on this topic as I'm sure your previous posts are sufficient for most posters - especially those quicker than me - and they would be much more interested in further description of DiffRatio than a repeat of a critique of my lack of grasping).

As a philosophy I do now understand your distinction from normal play more clearly. But, to look at the comparison to normal play from a more practical viewpoint, I do still wonder how often in practice it is actually feasible to implement HOHO in anything but a fairly un-aggresive way - and this is what I would argue makes it pretty indistinguishable from normal play. To actually make a 'true' HOHO transfer (that is, to swap an in-form premium player to another with better fixtures on an occasion when you wouldn't under normal play) you first two things to happen:

Firstly, you need a free transfer and no other major team fires to put out - having read many of your posts I doubt you would qualify a hit/hits for such a move. Having such a free transfer is in my experience not a hugely common event, especially in the first half of the season. If your also employing a strategy for keeping control of your cheaper/bench players or some overall squad structure (like DiffRatio) then finding yourself with free transfers (that you would not use for a premium player switch in normal play) seems even more unlikely. If a transfer is free then unless there was a specific need to save it for the following week I think most players would under normal play use it to do precisely what might be called a 'weak HOHO' transfer - to bring in a premium player with a really good fixture - especially if there was a standout captain they did not own.

Secondly (and probably related to the first), you need all your similar valued premium players in the same position to be in form. Otherwise, I don't see why you would ever take out the in-form player with slightly dodgy fixtures instead of the out of form player. If the in-form player had really terrible fixtures and the out of form player really good ones then I think transferring out the in form player would at the very least be a very common move.

One big distinction from normal play might be in how you deal with the 'super-premium' players (Agueros, Sanchezes, Hazards or the Suarezes, Lampards, Ronaldos and RVPs of the past), rather than just the the premium players (the circa 9-9.5m midfield players, Rooney, Sturridge etc). With the premium players you tend to have a few in your squad at all times (and so would surely just take out the one out of form), but for the super premiums this probably isn't viable due to their lack of number - I guess your example of Costa to Aguero is nearer this super-premium category of transfer. But, in this high stakes scenario it seems to me that all transfers should really be considered case by case, rather than based on some overriding idiom. Without trying to sound churlish, I'm sure that is what you have in practice done in each of your HOHO transfers this season - and you wouldn't have done the transfers if you didn't think you'd have gained points.

If a player does actually find themself in a situation where they can do a true HOHO transfer, it would almost be what used to be described on the forum as a 'vanity' transfer or a 'tinker' - one not absolutely necessary for the ongoing management of your squad, but the use of a spare transfer just to spruce it up a bit for a one/two week premium player nice fixture. This certainly used to be normal play in the case of big differences in fixture difficulty, although maybe the terminology (or even practice) has faded somewhat.

Having said all this, it is a big possibility that 'normal play' to me is pretty much exactly as you describe as HOHO, or at least simply a watered down version of HOHO, and not normal play to most other players (which is possibly why I may be talking in semantics). It might just be my perception. I had actually assumed that you had used HOHO in your title winning year, so it's interesting that it appears a new thing to you this season (even if qualified with reasoned argument). I suppose then it's fair to say it's actually pretty untested (and probably pretty hard to test), especially with your mixed results on points return outcome so far. However, I am delighted that you've clarified as I do think what you suggest probably is slightly more aggressive that at least I myself would be used to and it certainly doesn't look like it's been a hindrance for you in yet another great season.


Anyways, moving on to the description, I guess one of the problems I do still have is specifically with the 'hop on/hop off' way of describing the strategy. I don't think that it, or any broad label for a method of playing, is likely to prove particularly useful compared with specific mantras (even compared to Archy's above one line interpretation concerning his balls! ).

It's the same with the terms 'differential' and 'Carlos Kickaball' (the fpl jargon not the poster). When they first introduced a few years back they had a very specific meaning. But, because the terms are so unspecific they soon became used to justify or label all kinds of moves that went against ownership or justifications for not picking new players to the league. Similarly, 'hop on/hop off' is so unspecific a term that it's intended usage will inevitably and quickly be transferred to any transfer out of one premium player for another - in fact I think we've already seen this happen throughout the year already - "I'm going to do this transfer because of HOHO" is a pretty uninformative and unchallengeable description of the unique circumstances surrounding any given transfer. (By the way, as an aside, does anyone still use the term CRD (Cheapest Regular Defender), or is that a TFF thing? It way always one of the key phrases in playing back when I started and is so obvious it's not even mentioned as a tactic for picking a team these days.)

I should probably try to explain why I appear to be battling this completely inane and superficial naming point ( ). It just seems to me that if we are to champion some tactic or other on the forum, we really should try to frame it in a way in which it will be most useful to those new to the game and stay useful over time - this is one of the reasons that I was trying to reword the two strategies - as the main point of the forum is for those who think they know something to try to give help and advice to new players.

Actually, it seems you have almost formed another re-wording of HOHO yourself, which again I feel is a very useful piece of advice in it's own right (albeit again, a fairly 'normal play' idea imo):

When choosing the best GW picks (including the best captain pick), 'Fixtures & Form' most often wins (in foresight) over 'Form over fixtures' strategy.

In fact, I have a proposition - in addition to discussing of these specific tactics of the spider, how about we use this discussion to re-create a modern FPL-specific version of what was invaluable to me when I first joined the forum - the FISO Ten Commandments? Maybe we could call them the Ten Tenets of FPL or something like that. There are many excellent posters that have frequented this thread (and I've posted here too) and I'm sure will happily contribute to such a thing, so it may be a good time for it.

Certainly on the back of anything that might/might not have been learnt from the discussion of fpl geniuses thread/following of top players this season, it may be a good time (warning: even mention of that thread may open up a can of worms).

[spiderm4tt]

Yes the Ten Commandments are good, but these commandments are 'quite obvious' and should be already etched on our hearts from the outset (That's the real commandments, not just the FPL commandments! ). Adding to this, or fulfilling the law/or commandments, with more detailed, defining, and evolving information, can only help turn the what deemed 'simple FPL game', into a 'complex game', and then back to a 'more simpler FPL game' once understood easily the new laws/or commandments/ways of playing FPL, in its ever evolving state.

I do like Archy's interpertation of 'HOHO'! But you've got to continually keep dropping them & grabbing them, and dropping them, and grabbing them, each or most GWs.......the big players that is


Regarding 'differentials' or 'lower ownership players'.

I can only speak for myself and what works, and what has worked, for me in FPL this past three seasons.

Striking the right team balance in FPL is important to achieving good consistency and moving up the rankings most weeks than not. Owning a few differentials, or lower ownership players, is only one of many parts of team balance that has helped me achieve good consistency.

In help to understand best about my differential ratios theory I will try and simplify it by using two polar opposite ends of team ownership balance as an example.

Eg:

If there are 100 FPL managers in your mini league, and they all had unlimited budgets, then the likelihood is that the majority of teams would have very similar teams if not exact teams with all the top quality FPL players. These players are therefore highly owned for obvious reasons in your ML. What will happen then on the large will be all relative scoring and rankings movements each GW as you mainly all have the same players. So you'll be relying on maybe just your captain pick or team formation (which most managers may have same captain pick & formation anyway due to obvious good form & good fixtures that GW) to try and move significantly up the rankings, or to make sure you don't fall down the rankings.

Therefore, having a team full of moderate to high ownership players may not get you anywhere fast.

Vice versa, if all the 100 managers in you ML had a full team of differentials, or lower ownership players, then you'd get mixed results, with some managers scoring well, some average, and some not so well, each GW. The gaps in rankings will become bigger each GW, whether it's moving up the rankings, or moving down the rankings. You will most probably have a 'yoyo effect' as you yoyo up and down the rankings, and possibly without much progress. So unless all, or most, of your differentials do well each GW (which is unlikely as not all players can do well every week) you'll see a red arrow. At the same time, if the high ownership players you do not own do well, it will only add to the 'misery' by resulting in not just a red arrow, but a significant, or huge, red arrow.

As you can see the two above approaches are polar opposites to the extreme, and the likelihood is that the results of these two approaches would be transferred to the overall FPL game, not just the ML.


If you own a full team of moderate to high ownership players then you'll 'stay in the pack' each or most weeks. But where is this pack? Or where are you placed? This pack, or your rank, could be the overall top 10, or top 100, top 1000, top 10,000, top 100,000, top 1000,000, or whatever mini-league 'pack' you have.

Unless we are sitting nicely at number one, then we are all 'chasing'. Being positioned around 1000,000 or 500,000 or even 20,000, is no good having the same, or most of the same, players as everyone above you. You probably will not get very high up the rankings very fast.

I have said before that I'm unsure about the optimum ratio, but around 7 moderate to high ownership players to 4 low ownershio players seems to have worked out best for me. However, if chasing maybe 6 to 5 is better, or if defending a lead then maybe 8 or 9 to 3 or 2 maybe better here.

For ease/simplisticy I'll just talk about the 7 to 4 ratio I mainly adopt on average.

If say you have around seven moderate to high ownership players along with around four lower ownership players then you can 'stay in the pack', or even creep forwards up the rankings even without your differentials doing well. But if a few, or all, of your lower ownership players score well then your arrow will not just be a green, but it will be a significant or huge green, simply because most of the managers above you will not own these players.

But you need to define, or be careful, on what a moderate to high or low ownership (or differential) player is. This is because a moderate to high ownership player (say 25-50+% overall ownership for example) may only be owned by say 5% of the players around and above you in top 1000, or top 10,000 etc due to this player just returning from injury, suspension or form. The 50% overall for example, maybe high due to lower ranked FPL managers, dead teams etc.

Aguero/Costa/Sturridge/Rooney/Siggy/Fabregas, are just some examples of quality players who may not be, and have not been, owned highly by the top teams at specific times of the season due to those players being out injured/suspended/bad form etc, but would be still highly owned overall.

Vice versa, a low ownership quality player of say <5% or <10% overall may actually be owned very highly by the players in top 100, top 1000, top 10,000 etc, due to new players on the scene, returning to form, returning from injury/suspension, has a DGW etc. Kane is one of example of this - he was a 'late starter' to this season, and more recently Bellerin. These players are no longer differentials amongst the top ranked managers (Bellerin for example is only owned by <5% overall, but I think is owned by around a huge 50% in top 1000).

Therefore, I personally have picked, and still pick players based on ownership, to try and strike the 'right' team balance, which enables my FPL team to get more green arrows than red arrows, and more importantly it helps some of my green arrows be significant greens (big jump up the rankings), and my red arrows not just be few, but also not be significant (small red arrows that are not too damaging).

I feel if I had my balance the other way round (such as 7 differentials & 4 high ownership players), then to me it would be an unnecessary risk, as I would be relying heavily on two outcomes, not just one - which are not just hoping that my differentials do well, but also hoping the top quality high ownership players that I don't own do not do well also.

Stemania - you say you can not pick a player on just ownership, and also you say just pick the best players.

Firstly, I do not pick players on just ownership - it has to suit my team balance, my tactics, strategy, and also fit to the situation around me. Ownership is just one of many parts, and also a key part, though in helping me deciding what players I need at that specific moment in time. If the final decision comes to ownership, then I need to choose whether it's best to go high, moderate, or low. But from experience this past three seasons my lower ownership players of 3 or 4, & sometimes 5, have worked out well.

Secondly, you cannot just pick the best players. It doesn't work like that. It's too simplistic. Simply because you cannot fit all the best players in your team due to:

1) 100m maximum starting budget.

2) There are more than 11 best, or at least more than 7 attacking front seven top FPL points potential players in the PL, especially more so this season.

3) You can only own three players per team (otherwise you may see FPL teams with Haz, Costa, Ivan, JT, Fab, Courtois, etc all at once)

Also, gaining consistent FPL points each GW (or more importantly getting a good GW ranking) is a team game. Often picking 'just the best players available' may not work, not just for the team balance/differential reasons mentioned above, but often in FPL it is 'combinations of players' that can out work best. A good combination of two to three quality players may score significantly highly and more consistently than just getting the best big hitter combined with cheap cannon fodder. Also getting the right cheap combination of players can help fund the main big hitting combination of players. But if you just went for the big best players without much thought then it is inevitable your team/squad may be weakened elsewhere due to the budget we all have.

Also blocking tactics comes into ownership. I've picked high ownership players who I didn't want to own to see off the threat of FPL managers around me who most of them owned these players. Also many times I've successfully 'blocked' managers around me by specifically going for quality lower ownership players who play in the same team (and position in FPL) of the high ownership players of rivals team.

I see FPL as 'a game, within a game, within a game'. The game (FPL) is to get as many points as you possible can over the 38 GWs by picking 'the best' players possible. The first 'within game' bit is the choosing the 'right' players (inc BPs friendly players), /formations/captains/transfer strategy, team finances etc, that best suit or fit the FPL game itself each or most GWs. If you stop here, which is the 'Game within a game' bit, then I'm sure you will do well over most FPL managers.

However, I take this a level deeper and look at the final 'within game' bit (of a game, within a game, within a game), which is the situation around you - your goals, your objectives, your mini-leagues, you overall ranking, your rivals. This way you see the overall picture of FPL and helps you decide best on how to move up the rankings consistently, rather than down the rankings consistently, or yo-yoing up and down rankings.

I was on The Weekly Fantasy Football Show podcast this Monday evening just gone:

https://soundcloud.com/weeklyfantasyfoo ... ameweek-30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I tried in a 'short time' to explain (starting at 19m25s) when I got asked the question on how to pick a good differential. I used Costa & Fabregas as an example of how you can actually find good top quality and potentially explosive differentials right under our nose without trying to find the next Michu or Ramsey of seasons gone by. According to FFF on Tuesday evening, Costa & Fabregas are owned by just 2.8% & 0.6% respectively in the overall top 1000, which is my final 'within game' bit as I'm knocking on the door of this group of FPL managers.

(Please ignore most the DGW advice as the show was recorded prior to this week's DGW announcements! Also even though I'm very much a podcast amateur, it wasn't my best performance - Was so tired as had just finished a 11 shift at work off the back of not much sleep Sunday night, and had no real prep time to answer the questions on the show!)

I didn't have access to FFF stats prior to the show, nor over previous seasons, I just used the final 'within game' bit, or the situation around me, to hypothesise that most top FPL ranked managers would have offloaded Costa & Siggy a while back when they got red cards, and Fabregas had injury/illness/poor form/blank GW/and also other mids doing better.

I imagine Rooney & Siggy are differentials too in this population of managers. So these four players alone (for starters) for example can sit along side my (and most others top ranked managers) staple diet of top quality high ownership players such as Hazard, Aguero, Silva, Kane, Terry/Ivan, Bertrand/Clyne - and Sanchez (if still had him but I recently offloaded him).

Like I always say - there is more than one way to play FPL, and my way above is just what has worked, and continues to work for me that's all. I am flexible and adaptable to change my strategy when needed asap, which is important in a game that is dynamic, not static, on a weekly basis.

Also this season due to the more quality front seven players available, it could be reasonable to suggest that you can still creep forward up the rankings with owning all, or most, of the high owned players as you've mentioned (if you can afford them all, and also most of them will have to do well most weeks to get a big significant green arrow), however, it's the top quality explosive differentials in the situation around you that will get you a big significant green arrow over a green arrow that is smaller. This is my experience anyway, and I'm sure it probably differs manager to managers.

Hope this helps. Sorry again for long post. I want to try and answer all points in one go if possible

[Mav3rick]

Thanks Spiderm4tt. The "game within the game within the game" is a really interesting point and one that I for one will consider more in the end of season push.

[Striker]

Although I'm not really an FPL manager, (keener on some of the other games around), I'm not sure I agree with spiderma4tt's argument, fascinating though it is. Surely his approach has far greater merit later in the season when you have a position to defend or some catching up to do. But for early part of the season and possibly even for the major part of the season, one might as well completely ignore what everyone else is doing and simply try to select what you think is the best potential team possible within the overall budget.

Mind you perhaps it's because that I never have any idea about things like what the current template is that contributes to my being so cr*p at this game.

[Stemania]

I look forward to reading all that in more detail again - many thanks for continuing to dedicate some time to FISO spidey - I suspect I have similar initial reservations to Striker above.

But before than, a quick HOHO question. My planned transfer this week is Giroud to Costa, despite Giroud's recent goals including a brace so far today, due to the differences in upcoming fixtures.

I consider this a 'normal' type of transfer for me personally, but is it an example of what you would describe as a HOHO transfer?

[spiderm4tt]

But before than, a quick HOHO question. My planned transfer this week is Giroud to Costa, despite Giroud's recent goals including a brace so far today, due to the differences in upcoming fixtures.

I consider this a 'normal' type of transfer for me personally, but is it an example of what you would describe as a HOHO transfer?

Yes I too would consider this a normal type transfer this week. It is not 'Hop on, Hop off'.

Reasons being it's a normal type transfer is that Costa is potentially better and more explosive player (despite Giroud doing well), he has potentially better GW31 & GW32 fixtures, he has a GW33, and also a DGW34, to which Giroud has none of these. Also it's likely you will keep Costa (if he's doing well) after GW34 for the run in due to his good form & fixtures. So yes it's a normal, and also obvious, transfer - and a potentially good one too.

For it to be 'Hop on, Hop off', then it has to be in a on & off strategy. Costa for example would have to make way the following GW32 for another top form & fixture explosive player. Say Giroud had an easier fixture GW32, or another top form forward had an easier GW32, then you hop immediately off Costa and on to any of those. Then the following GW33 you would hop back on to Costa if he had the better fixture, or on to another top explosive form & fixture GW33 player - and so on for GW34, 35 etc...

This is HOHO. It's on and off, back and forth, in and out, with top quality explosive players weekly - which is very different from your normal type transfer you mentioned.

[MoSe]

in this FPL-dull 2 weeks international break, I went on a charting-spree in the Overall Rank thread
post2687493.html#p2687493" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matt is not in FISO top 10 atm, but he's honoring the forum with his presence and posts,
so I thought appropriate to prepare and post here a BONUS TRACK for this topic namesake

FPL ranking -spiderm4tt.png

I know that's just plain arid data, and not knowledge and insights, but I'm just the base-layer provider

Matt, your climb this season stopped just short of breaking into Top1k, but the season is not over yet
and as I think I saw you mention somewhere yourself, "it's the journey, not the goal"

[spiderm4tt]

Nice one - many thanks MoSe

Yes been knocking on the door of the top 1000 for a while now. Could do with another GW or two like my GW2 or GW23!

[murf]

Using a log scale makes your weekly performance look rubbish!

[MoSe]

well, in a relative way, it does a bit....
as the site overhaul renamed the internal site links, and they're all broken now, I'll relink
viewtopic.php?p=2687493#p2687493
and also insert here the FISO Top 3 for comparison

• 

if you want to keep both GR and OR in the same graph, it's a compromise dealing with the fact the best players have OR in the Top100 but very rarely a Gameweek ranking below 1k (I'll have to test with BB one )
you just have to adjust the eye to it

with a linear scale, any Overall Rank better than 1k or just 10k would be "flatlined"
the alternative would be *separate* GR and OR graphs....

• didn't want to hijack the spiderm4tt topic, these are ranking graphs, any suggestions please in the abovelinked Overall Rank topic, thanks