To see less ads Register or Login ----- Daily Fantasy Sports games 18+

Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

A Fantasy Football forum for news on fantasy football games run by the Premierleague (FPL).
Hamlet
Treebeard
Posts: 190
Joined: 16 Oct 2005, 20:04

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Hamlet »

Just joined. Lads on Toure, WC33 BB34 TC37.

User avatar
Beerfuelledman
FISO Knight
Posts: 13220
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:26
Location: In Norn Iron
FS Record: FISO 17/18 FPL Cash Draft League Winner

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Beerfuelledman »

Mr Clarinet wrote:
Mr Clarinet wrote:Strategy-wise, everyone in the league is all-in now, as far as WC, BB and TC chips go. No-one has kept their TC back for Sanchez, or maybe Welbeck, in GW38.

I'll close the league to new entries once the game goes live at the start of GW38.
Edit - among the last minute entrants, there is one who does still have TC available for GW38, so watch out for that!
As a BB34/TC37er - and with the benefit of hindsight, I think I would rather have played my TC in GW 34 when I would almost certainly have captained Sanchez for (25x3=75pts) and then BB in 37. But the benefit of hindsight is down to the way things panned out. Sanchez could have "done a Carroll" in 34 and Payet in 37 COULD have went on a rampage against a Swansea side missing their best defender.

Can we determine the STRATEGICALLY correct move or are we going to be bound by, in simplistic terms - the run of results we ultimately got...

User avatar
Hogmeister
Dumbledore
Posts: 6852
Joined: 05 Aug 2010, 21:26
Location: Sitting in my tin can, far above the world
FS Record: Top 300 in all-time FPL rankings

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Hogmeister »

Whatever the right strategy was, it clearly wasn't mine (BB34/TC37er, btw) - I am now rock bottom of this league, having had a really miserable few weeks :evil:

User avatar
PleasedToMichu
FISOhead
Posts: 691
Joined: 20 Jul 2015, 07:26

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by PleasedToMichu »

As a TC34/BB37-player i'm quite happy with my choice.

The week where the decision had to be done (GW32/33) I tried to find the best prospect to utilize TC-chip. The emerging form of Sanchez at that time made the decision very easy, for me at least. To me the key was always to find the best use of TC, rather than focusing on BB. Another factor that made me go with a late WC was the oppurtunity to spread the funds of Aguero around, making the 4/5-defender spot and 5-mid spot a bit better, and at the same time minimize the risk of not owning him. With a no-show in GW36 that clearly worked out for me.

I recall Sanchez in GW34 and Payet in GW37 was the top TC-prospect at that time. I fint it strange that so many went with BB in GW34, as the best choice on paper clearly was Sanchez. To "plan" to play TC on Payet already in GW32/33, when the oppurtunity to play it on Sanchez in GW34 waas there, is to me very strange.

Maybee some had issues with their team at the time, some had grounds to make up in a ML or something similar. That i can understand.

It's perhaps my rating of the chips that is different from many? I mean, with BB you don't put all your eggs in one basket, but you clearly do that with TC

User avatar
Mr Clarinet
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 2253
Joined: 30 Sep 2008, 17:35
Location: Athens

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Mr Clarinet »

Beerfuelledman wrote:
Can we determine the STRATEGICALLY correct move or are we going to be bound by, in simplistic terms - the run of results we ultimately got...
There was some debate related to this question in another thread, which I hadn't intended to revisit, so I'll be brief. There is a school of thought that holds (I think) that it is possible to determine the correct strategy (in advance), and that this then remains the correct strategy even if it is not borne out by what subsequently happens. There is another school of thought that holds that, in principle, predictions should be tested against data.
The main problem with the former (I think) is that it is difficult to test because it is hard to see how to falsify the model. The main problem with the latter is that the available data may be rather noisy and perhaps limited in quantity.
I'm not proposing anything very grand in terms of analysis. It's been an interesting exercise (for me, at least) and I'll try to provide one or two insights (that will likely be rather obvious). And I'm happy to provide the league spreadsheet - once complete, next week - to anyone else who wants to look at the data in their own way.

User avatar
Mr Clarinet
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 2253
Joined: 30 Sep 2008, 17:35
Location: Athens

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Mr Clarinet »

Here's the Top 30 (i.e., the top half of the league) after GW 37. Ties on points are resolved by least transfer hits during the period of the league.
Strategy-wise, 6 of the top 8 have used the same strategy: TC-34/WC-36/BB-37.

1 Niskala FC 539
2 Armes Tuk Tuks 520
3 Nottingham Forest 516
4 Blacksunrise 514
5 The Surprise Package 512
6 FC Schmengellow 2015 511
7 Don'tcallmeSchürrle 511
8 HQM 507
9 ian the girth ©® 507
10 Is your Cresswell? 506
11 Fuzzy Duck FC 496
12 Chopin FC 494
13 Jelle & Dyche Dream 493
14 McSharry's Form 5s 489
15 Los Goleadores 487
16 Steamshovels 484
17 NorthBeach Dadbodies 483
18 Lads on Toure 482
19 Can Ibe your fantasy 472
20 stuboy united 472
21 CTRL ALT DE LAET 471
22 Jacko's Jokers 470
23 Blind Over Mata 468
24 Aldershot Rejects 468
25 Away's Count Double 467
26 Ayew Shaw? 464
27 Ibe gotta feeling 464
28 Neilers Nailed On! 464
29 Red Star Morningside 463
30 everythingbutthegoal 463

User avatar
Mr Clarinet
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 2253
Joined: 30 Sep 2008, 17:35
Location: Athens

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Mr Clarinet »

And a shout-out to Rob's Dogs, in 31st place! :D

31 Rob's Dogs VII 462

User avatar
BobMem
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 4222
Joined: 24 Dec 2010, 08:54
FS Record: The Graduates - FISO 5AS H2H Champions 13/14
FISO King of Rock and Roll - Elimination game winner 2015/16

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by BobMem »

:) always the one after the list. Maybe I should just consider being better?

I wonder whether the results of the gameweeks are skewing the league. The fact 2 strong choices both smashed a massive score in GW34 means that the late WC strategy pretty much always looks better. Doesn't really help with learning the lessons for next season though.

User avatar
Valeron
FISOhead
Posts: 754
Joined: 30 Dec 2011, 09:53

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Valeron »

Clearly you cannot say with certainly what the better strategy was from the limited data sample of results, even if there is a slight pattern.

I do think most of the arguments documented on this forum in favor of the late WC played out. namely:

Sanchez in 34 clearly a better TC than anything in 37. That's not being wise after the event, they had 2 attractive home matches and his form had arrived.
More chance of resting in 34 compared to 37.
Early WC damages your team for GW35 onwards.

You could argue the early WC got a bad break with Liverpool beating Dortmund but others things went their way like Darlow massively over performing, particularly for those who got his 15 points off the bench when Robles didn't play in GW36.

There's no doubt in my mind that as long as the planning started as soon as the rearranged fixtures were announced, that the late WC was the better strategy. The 33 WC was a trap.

User avatar
MadasHell
Wideboy
Posts: 57
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 22:57
FS Record: Agadoo

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by MadasHell »

The experiment isn't over yet. GW38 to come, and those who loaded up with doublers for GW37 via a late WC have a different starting base going into 38 than the early WCers.

I'm not saying that it will look very different; I'm just saying that the roulette wheel hasn't quite stopped turning yet.

User avatar
matmutte
FISOhead
Posts: 681
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 15:51

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by matmutte »

Valeron wrote:Clearly you cannot say with certainly what the better strategy was from the limited data sample of results, even if there is a slight pattern.

I do think most of the arguments documented on this forum in favor of the late WC played out. namely:

Sanchez in 34 clearly a better TC than anything in 37. That's not being wise after the event, they had 2 attractive home matches and his form had arrived.
More chance of resting in 34 compared to 37.
Early WC damages your team for GW35 onwards.

You could argue the early WC got a bad break with Liverpool beating Dortmund but others things went their way like Darlow massively over performing, particularly for those who got his 15 points off the bench when Robles didn't play in GW36.

There's no doubt in my mind that as long as the planning started as soon as the rearranged fixtures were announced, that the late WC was the better strategy. The 33 WC was a trap.
Agree with all of this. Actually the team wrecking even started GW33 onwards, as many GW33 WCers have suffered a lot removing key players in GW33 itself. Another thing i would add is that there was really enough time to set-up a decent team for DGW34 without using the WC, while that was much harder to do for DGW37.

Obviously as the poster above has said there is still GW38 to be taken into account but i do not expect it to reverse things. Biggest risk is going without both of Kane/Aguero but most will manage to correct that using their FT this week.

User avatar
Archy
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 3210
Joined: 22 Oct 2011, 10:09
FS Record: Maybe all is not lost after all

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Archy »

I think some people have convinced themselves that TC34 WC36 BB37 was the better option mainly because Sanchez delivered the goods with TC 34, but this doesn't tell the full story.

My highest 3 weekly rankings of the season were:

GW 32 5,108 (WC)
GW 34 14,948 (BB)
GW 37 19,769 (TC)

So its fair to say I was very happy with the decision to WC in GW32 (an approach highlighted by Triggerlipps) and believe it was the best option.

Sanzhez had an exceptionally good week in GW34 (with a points tally beyond expectations), but even so the TC was only worth an extra 13 points over the TC of Payet in GW37. IMO this 13 point benefit was comfortably compensated by:

- Getting all the strong GW34 players in 2 weeks early, taking advantage of their strong fixtures in GW32 also (most of them duely delievred that week)
- Doing the WC at this stage, or GW33, also gave the the opportunity to gain from the Everton/Palace DGW in GW33. This (unfortunately) didn't deliver much to attackers but defences got CSs and Ward alone was a beast delivering 18 points so this in itself surpassed the Sanchez TC benefit.
- The better set of fixtures in GW34 over GW37 didn't just benefit the TC, it benefitted 4 BB players too. Without the beneit of hindsight, I'm pretty sure most managers would prefer to have the points of 4 good bench players than one Sanchez (that's what the equation boiled down to).
- Having a strong bench from that point onwards meant there was good cover for the likes of Alli and Sakho, ie you benefitted from having a strong squad (reducing need for transfers and hits) for several games and not just one or two.

I would definitely do the same WC in GW32 if i had the choice again. Second coice would be WC 33 and then WC 36 as the 3rd best.

User avatar
PleasedToMichu
FISOhead
Posts: 691
Joined: 20 Jul 2015, 07:26

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by PleasedToMichu »

Archy wrote:Sanzhez had an exceptionally good week in GW34 (with a points tally beyond expectations), but even so the TC was only worth an extra 13 points over the TC of Payet in GW37.
Perhaps i'm not getting your point the right way here, if so I apologize.

But those who TC Sanchez in GW34 got 75 points in total. Those who TC Payet in GW37 got 36 points in total. Thats a swing of 39 points gained on choosing TC34 over TC37. The 13 extra points Sanchez got must be multiplied by three before calculating the compensation in other GW's

User avatar
Valeron
FISOhead
Posts: 754
Joined: 30 Dec 2011, 09:53

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Valeron »

Archy - and how did you do the other GWs from 32? A proper analysis of the different strategies can't be just about hand picking the GWs that went well for you. As a late wildcarder I expected to lose ground in 33 and 34 and start clawing it back eventually with interest starting in 35.

Either way, it may be you came out of the last few GWs very well but others who used the same strategy may not have. Same for anyone who TC Ozil instead of Sanchez in 34. Mose's analysis plus the general comments suggest to me that the late wildcard was better.

User avatar
Archy
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 3210
Joined: 22 Oct 2011, 10:09
FS Record: Maybe all is not lost after all

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Archy »

PleasedToMichu wrote:
Archy wrote:Sanzhez had an exceptionally good week in GW34 (with a points tally beyond expectations), but even so the TC was only worth an extra 13 points over the TC of Payet in GW37.
Perhaps i'm not getting your point the right way here, if so I apologize.

But those who TC Sanchez in GW34 got 75 points in total. Those who TC Payet in GW37 got 36 points in total. Thats a swing of 39 points gained on choosing TC34 over TC37. The 13 extra points Sanchez got must be multiplied by three before calculating the compensation in other GW's
A normal captaincy of Sanchez earned 50 points (25 points lower than a TC) and a normal captaincy of Payet earned 26 points (12 lower than a TC). The net benefit of a Sanchez TC in GW34 over normal C was therefore 25-12 = 13 points

User avatar
Carlos Kickaball
Dumbledore
Posts: 7801
Joined: 04 Sep 2013, 18:02

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Carlos Kickaball »

Archy wrote:A normal captaincy of Sanchez earned 50 points (25 points lower than a TC) and a normal captaincy of Payet earned 26 points (12 lower than a TC). The net benefit of a Sanchez TC in GW34 over normal C was therefore 25-12 = 13 points
+1 This is spot on, and I'm surprised how often this is lost in captain and similar comparisons.

Of course it gets more complicated if you didn't choose to captain Payet or Sánchez, or even own them, but they are separate decisions to the triple captain.

User avatar
Archy
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 3210
Joined: 22 Oct 2011, 10:09
FS Record: Maybe all is not lost after all

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Archy »

Valeron wrote:Archy - and how did you do the other GWs from 32? A proper analysis of the different strategies can't be just about hand picking the GWs that went well for you. As a late wildcarder I expected to lose ground in 33 and 34 and start clawing it back eventually with interest starting in 35.

Either way, it may be you came out of the last few GWs very well but others who used the same strategy may not have. Same for anyone who TC Ozil instead of Sanchez in 34. Mose's analysis plus the general comments suggest to me that the late wildcard was better.
Over the period in question I've done well, with 5 green arrows and one (small) red arrow. Its not really about the weekly scores, the broader issue is the arguments for the earlier WC still stack up IMO, even after the large Sanchez TC haul in GW34.

User avatar
Valeron
FISOhead
Posts: 754
Joined: 30 Dec 2011, 09:53

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Valeron »

Surely green/red arrows are no measure without at least some context of overall rank now and pre-GW32. Plenty of mugs had already used all their chips before GW32.

You keep mentioning Sanchez over performing in 34 but let's remember many early WCers have had Darlow, Robles, Sakho overperforming in key GWs.

User avatar
MoSe
Dumbledore
Posts: 9550
Joined: 10 Sep 2014, 12:25
Location: next door S.Siro stadium
FS Record: FISODAS CUP Winner Season 25
FISO H2H Winner: 15/16 Div2 - 16/17 Div1
FISO Mirror: 16/17 PL Winner

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by MoSe »

:?:
Valeron wrote:Mose's analysis plus the general comments suggest to me that the late wildcard was better.
I second your approach here, and thank you for mentioning me as a refernce,
but now I'm puzzled, and a bit curious too:
which one (of the many) and in which topic?

I remember debating a bit about BB, then I mostly collate and compare basic data, (Oh: and chart it! :mrgreen: )
others have posted deeper and "more proper" analyses about the DGW

Actually, I even abstained from posting in this topic, after MrC invited me to do so,
so it's not an analysis I posted in this one... :?

User avatar
Archy
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 3210
Joined: 22 Oct 2011, 10:09
FS Record: Maybe all is not lost after all

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Archy »

Valeron wrote:Surely green/red arrows are no measure without at least some context of overall rank now and pre-GW32. Plenty of mugs had already used all their chips before GW32.

You keep mentioning Sanchez over performing in 34 but let's remember many early WCers have had Darlow, Robles, Sakho overperforming in key GWs.
I'm sorry I haven't read any of the post-WC analysis, I just caught the tail end in which there seemed to be a consensus that the late wildcard was better and wanted to post an alternative viewpoint.

I had had a spectacularly bad season up to GW31 when I was languishing around 472,000. Now sitting around 45,000 (still disappointing but a massive improvement) so I'm happy the early WC has worked for me.

I was convinced by the GW32 WC option by the analysis Triggerlips posted on his website (Thanks to Triggerlips and the person who referenced it on here). The early WC was also chosen by top player Ville Ronke and by former Champ Spidermatt; If players of that calibre chose the early WC strategy it gives me confidence it was the right decision.

Ps popular non-wildcard options such as Alli and Alderweireld scored well beyond expectations in GW33 and GW34 (combined 7-0 result from two potentially difficult games) so we could be here all day debating who over-performed!

User avatar
Archy
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 3210
Joined: 22 Oct 2011, 10:09
FS Record: Maybe all is not lost after all

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Archy »

Also, on a general note about Wildcarding, you do tend to find the top players will usually take the opportunity to wildcard sooner rather than later.

Ville and Spidermatt both used the first WC in the first few weeks of the season as well as taking the early WC option in the later stages.

I think there is an overall generic argument that the sooner you WC the more gameweeks you have to benefit from it, and this overarching principle should form the starting point for any analysis on when to use the WC chips.

User avatar
BobMem
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 4222
Joined: 24 Dec 2010, 08:54
FS Record: The Graduates - FISO 5AS H2H Champions 13/14
FISO King of Rock and Roll - Elimination game winner 2015/16

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by BobMem »

For me the main reason I went for the late WC is I really didn't like the transition from DG34 to DG37, with the tricky short GW35 in the middle. It just seemed that it was easier to prepare for 34, and ride 35 with no worry about any future GWs, due to WCing in 36.
In addition to the aforementioned good TC choices in 34, I also really liked the cheap defenders with doubles in 37. In particular Sunderland and Watford. For me cheap defenders are the perfect foil for WC-BB teams as they allow money to be spent elsewhere.

User avatar
PleasedToMichu
FISOhead
Posts: 691
Joined: 20 Jul 2015, 07:26

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by PleasedToMichu »

Archy wrote:
PleasedToMichu wrote:
Archy wrote:Sanzhez had an exceptionally good week in GW34 (with a points tally beyond expectations), but even so the TC was only worth an extra 13 points over the TC of Payet in GW37.
Perhaps i'm not getting your point the right way here, if so I apologize.

But those who TC Sanchez in GW34 got 75 points in total. Those who TC Payet in GW37 got 36 points in total. Thats a swing of 39 points gained on choosing TC34 over TC37. The 13 extra points Sanchez got must be multiplied by three before calculating the compensation in other GW's
A normal captaincy of Sanchez earned 50 points (25 points lower than a TC) and a normal captaincy of Payet earned 26 points (12 lower than a TC). The net benefit of a Sanchez TC in GW34 over normal C was therefore 25-12 = 13 points
Thank you. Of cource you are right, I felt I was missing something.

What answers are we looking for? If a late WC-BB/TC-combo in a given DGW is strategically the right move for maximizing use of chips, compared to a earlier use of WC-BB/TC in a team/form suiting situation outside DGW? Or are we trying to find the right order of use this season?

It would suprise me bigtime if not the late use of WC/chips was the best way, and the order itself is not so important, strategically speaking. It was fully possible to manage both DGW with the same DGW-players-amount in total if you WC in GW32/33 or GW36, and own judgement, team at that time, predtictions, gut and more would equal what order that was strategically right for your own team, not necessary the right order for everyone else.

I would like to compare results of those who kept the usual SGW-suspects over those who got rid of them in order to maximize DGW/BB-combo, and if there was a golden middleway to all this. That would be far more interesting. How bad (if at all?) was those who got rid of Aguero/Kane/Mahrez/Fuchs/Morgan/Vardy in GW32/33 hurt compared to those who kept one ore more. Who was essentially the one all should have kept throughout the whole period, and who should have been binned, and perhaps why? The same for WC36-players.

Notned
FISO Knight
Posts: 11198
Joined: 13 Sep 2013, 12:30

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Notned »

Still unsure which approach was the best. Very little in it in my opinion, although it turned out GW34 was far and away the best week for TC. Personally, wildcarding early led to a very disappointing 87 for me this week, but this was offset by a very good 180 in the earlier double. I'd imagine 267 for those two gameweeks combined is probably about par? So maybe I called it just about right for my team personally.

To be honest, I don't think we can make a clear judgement until we have another season's sample for comparison, assuming of course the chips remain.

User avatar
Valeron
FISOhead
Posts: 754
Joined: 30 Dec 2011, 09:53

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Valeron »

Notned - but you undoubtedly have to include your total score from GW33 for any valid analysis of the 2 main strategies. I personally felt the late WC would mean having a much better team in 35, for example.

And another season's sample will be of no help in assessing this season and vice versa as the circumstances will be very different.

User avatar
Valeron
FISOhead
Posts: 754
Joined: 30 Dec 2011, 09:53

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Valeron »

Archy wrote:
Valeron wrote:Surely green/red arrows are no measure without at least some context of overall rank now and pre-GW32. Plenty of mugs had already used all their chips before GW32.

You keep mentioning Sanchez over performing in 34 but let's remember many early WCers have had Darlow, Robles, Sakho overperforming in key GWs.
I'm sorry I haven't read any of the post-WC analysis, I just caught the tail end in which there seemed to be a consensus that the late wildcard was better and wanted to post an alternative viewpoint.

I had had a spectacularly bad season up to GW31 when I was languishing around 472,000. Now sitting around 45,000 (still disappointing but a massive improvement) so I'm happy the early WC has worked for me.

I was convinced by the GW32 WC option by the analysis Triggerlips posted on his website (Thanks to Triggerlips and the person who referenced it on here). The early WC was also chosen by top player Ville Ronke and by former Champ Spidermatt; If players of that calibre chose the early WC strategy it gives me confidence it was the right decision.

Ps popular non-wildcard options such as Alli and Alderweireld scored well beyond expectations in GW33 and GW34 (combined 7-0 result from two potentially difficult games) so we could be here all day debating who over-performed!
Ok fair do's Archy and agree on the Spurs boys overperforming etc
You mention the likes of Ville and spidermatt and that's probably the main reason I'm interested In discussing this topic as its true almost all of the elite players played their WC in 33, while I felt that the late WC was better from the moment the rearranged fixtures were announced. I reckon a herd mentality played a part.

User avatar
Sutter Kane
Dumbledore
Posts: 7522
Joined: 05 Aug 2010, 12:13
FS Record: Unknown.

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Sutter Kane »

Notned wrote:I'd imagine 267 for those two gameweeks combined is probably about par? So maybe I called it just about right for my team personally.
No way! 267 is enormous. If you got 150 in the DGW34 then I think you did pretty well, 180 is gigantic - 150pts would also leave a huge 117pts for GW37.

I still think the way the fixtures fell, either a GW32 or the late WC was a better strategy (if you planned for 9-11 quality doublers in GW34 anyway - I actually felt I would have been ripping apart an excellent squad from GW33-35 by wildcarding so I didn't) though it didn't turn out that way for me as I triple captained Lukaku back in GW33 - the swings/fallout from that decision destroyed my score in GW34 - relied on Ozil (c) in GW34 with no Sanchez so I'd have TC'd Ozil anyway if I hadn't with Lukaku. The punishment of 40-60 points+ swing far outweighed the 'suboptimal' decision I made in this case. But it would tend to an average 'long term' thus I'd make the same moves next season in the same position. You can't cover every potentially explosive base in a DGW. From GW29-37 my GW rankings have been overall outstanding bar GW34 so I'm not sure what to make of that - If Ozil had come close to matching Sanchez that week, I'd have probably been top 10k now even with my Lukaku botch TC (again though punished severely for a decision that could have very realistically brought huge rewards, most single captained him in GW33 anyway). Those fine lines make me think there is no correct strategy that's definitely identifiable, especially with the amount of variables we're considering and it'll be all different again next season.

User avatar
The Catman
Grumpy Old Man
Posts: 4415
Joined: 27 Jun 2013, 13:30
FS Record: Winner 2013 TFC T20 wickets league; Winner 2012 F1 Fantasyracers.com. Winner Mirror FF Free League 2014/15. 6th TFC T20 runs 2016.

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by The Catman »

Sutter Kane wrote:
Notned wrote:I'd imagine 267 for those two gameweeks combined is probably about par? So maybe I called it just about right for my team personally.
No way! 267 is enormous. If you got 150 in the DGW34 then I think you did pretty well, 180 is gigantic - 150pts would also leave a huge 117pts for GW37.
272, late WC here, current leader of this ML got 279

User avatar
Geri
Red & Blue Braces
Posts: 367
Joined: 22 Oct 2015, 19:32

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Geri »

286 here, late WC
Can't factor out luck though

User avatar
Sutter Kane
Dumbledore
Posts: 7522
Joined: 05 Aug 2010, 12:13
FS Record: Unknown.

Re: Analysing strategy for the run-in: The wildcard strategy league

Post by Sutter Kane »

I think we'd need quite a lot of responses to estimate a par score. I'm fairly convinced 267 is way above average though considering the scores posted in the relevant threads in those weeks.

View Latest: 1 Day View Your posts
Post Reply

Return to “Fantasy PremierLeague.com (FPL)”