<<Sorry for replying in another thread triggerlips, but I thought this might be a better place for my questions, plus it doesn't disrupt the current HoF discussion in the original place. Edit: In view on MoSe latest post there maybe this was a questionable decision, but there you go.>>triggerlips wrote: The reason for spending such a generous amount on attack is the need to cover the captain bases, i always captain the top of the poll so it is essential i own those players.
This is something I missed on first read and found quite interesting. Many of us often edge towards expected captaincy amongs the top 10k if it's a tight decision. I seem to remember ex-winner spiderm4tt says he also gives the poll results a slightly higher weighting in his decision process than I'd be comfortable with. (In fact, he takes ownership into account on many decisions including the makeup of his whole squad). How religious are you with this? Would you go with expected ownership even if you thought you pretty certainly owned a better option? It certainly doesn't seem a coincidence that you both seem aligned more in that direction anyway, which I find interesting as it's not really how I play generally speaking.
I'm a bit torn on the whole issue actually. If it's not close I think (at least theoretically) that you should go with the player you think will score most points regardless of expected top 10k captaincy/ownership levels. But on the other hand, I'm very aware that we should all admit that our own information/feeling (that we are going to base our decision on) may be wrong, biased or incomplete. What we think is obvious may be a close call to or even the opposite of the thinking of most top players (in terms of say the top 10k). Then you could argue that it's much more likely that they are closer to the truth as a group than most of them are wrong and I am right. But, my feeling is that we should each be a bit more confident than that - going against ownership when you are confident in a player is one of the ways you can make real gains imo.
If it's a very close call I do certainly think ownership/captaincy levels is a very legitimate (if not hugely telling) consideration. To recycle an old post of mine, I see it as a bit of a risk multiplier and a good decider when a decision is a close one. Going against ownership when the projected scores of two players are very similar just adds unnecessary risk by increasing the variance in the difference between you and your rival's expected scores, even if the expected mean scores stay the same. It seems to me that the best strategy is to reduce the risk for the close calls and go with ownership. When there is a large enough difference in projected scores obviously you should pick the higher projection - that way you are reducing the luck effect when you don't really know the answer and increasing the rewards when you think you do.
Again, I wonder. How stubborn are you with these amounts - how much would you be willing to move? They seem too fixed for me, certainly I wouldn't have expected such a good player to as a rule stick precisely to a funds spread in GW1 which again is why I'm so interested as it's not how I play. I think we're all pretty comfortable with the fact that strikers get the most points (smarty_pants excellent blog has just re-iterated this) and are probably the best captains (due also to their high points ceilings) but I don't really see how the best money allocation shouldn't depend mainly on the players available and opening fixtures. Is there any particular reason (or calculation) for your precise figures or is it just a tried and tested thing? If we could immediately see two very underpriced cheapish strikers would you go with them early doors or just take the best and stick to your allocation with the other two? I guess this is a pretty uncommon occurrence as fpl are pretty decent at pricing these days, but hypothetically possible at least. It's not beyond the realms that Aguero and Costa could be nearly 25m between them next year - what happens if Chelsea and City both start with really nice runs? If those two seemed vital after the friendlies would you definitely prefer a move to 352 whatever value any third striker or cheap mids might be?triggerlips wrote: I read with interest the thoughts on my team structure. Just to clear something up, the amount i distribute between defence, midfield and attack remains fairly static each season with attack receiving a very generous chunk.
What does change is the allocation within each group. For example last season from memory it was 10.5 10.5 8.5 This season it could be 12.5 8.5 8.5 depending on players, or 12.5 10 6.5...
...Once it became clear this season that there were simply not the expensive strikers around , and we had Kane and Austin i gradually moved more funds into midfield. However for the start of the season i always keep the same structure
I guess the thrust of rambling is, do you see flexibility (by having a fairly static spread of funds every GW1) as a more important factor than owning possibly the 'best' on paper list of 15 players (in terms of expected points output), which may be very skewed towards attack or midfield?