Analysis Early Trading?

[Impromptu]

In the past few rounds, we may have made some 'corrective trades' as we may have missed 'cash cows' on the bubble or decided to release a 'fallen premium'. This round theoretical, we should not make trades in SuperCoach. The main reason is that our cash cows may have not matured to an optimal level, say $300,000. What we should do in theory and we do in practice is usually not the same and SuperCoach is no different.

Jack Viney

Jack Viney is currently priced at $193,400 and has a breakeven of 28. At the projected SuperCoach Gold score of 62, Viney is expected to increase by $15,000. However, some people may be tempted to move him on, mainly due to his last score of 9 (subbed off). Clearly, trading out Viney as a cash cow is currently not at an acceptable level and we would generally hope to make another $100,000 on Viney as a cash cow.

So the question is do we trade Viney out?

Broadly, there are two schools of thought:

1. Keep Viney and ride the last score of 9 as even with a projected score of 62, Viney is expected to increase by $15,000. Furthermore, as there a number of cash cows moo-ing, you can only trade 2 cash cows at a time therefore, it doesn't matter some cash cows take a bit longer maturing.
2. Trade Viney out now and bring in another cash cow on the bubble such as Michael Evans, Sam Mayes and company.

My personal view is that it really depends on your individual circumstances.

If the extra $77,500 ($193,400 - $115,900) can help you trade in super premium instead of a premium, then arguably this is acceptable, especially if you bring in a cash cow on the bubble.

Generally, it is not recommended as you are effectively cashing in your cash cow too early. However, if you can get an extra premium then perhaps it's okay.

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 770, align: center"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]Position
[/TD]
[TD]Name
[/TD]
[TD]Cost ($)
[/TD]
[TD]Cost (PPG)
[/TD]
[TD]Average
[/TD]
[TD]Prior
[/TD]
[TD]R3
[/TD]
[TD]BE
[/TD]
[TD]SC Gold
[/TD]
[TD]Increase
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MID
[/TD]
[TD]Michael Evans
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$115,900
[/TD]
[TD]22
[/TD]
[TD]82
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]48
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]116
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-99
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]58
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$70,000
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MID/FWD
[/TD]
[TD]Sam Mayes
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$164,500
[/TD]
[TD]31
[/TD]
[TD]75
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]72
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]78
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-58
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]74
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$59,200
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MID
[/TD]
[TD]Jack Viney
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$193,400
[/TD]
[TD]36
[/TD]
[TD]62
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]71
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]9
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]28
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]62
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$15,000
[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

Michael Evans v Sam Mayes

For me, Michael Evans is a clear winner here with a lower base price ($48,600 difference) with his last score of 116, which means that with 3 game weighted average, the 116 will be included in the next 2 games. In these circumstances, 'A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush' strategy may be appropriate. Now Mayes does have the advantage of DPP (MID/FWD) and appears to have more job security. I don't think it can be faulted to choose Mayes over Evans, especially if you are happy to wait and need the MID/FWD attribute, but Evans for me.

Is It Too Early Trade?

I don't think it's early to trade, if they are 'corrective trades'.

I am thinking of doing the following:

• OUT - Josh Jenkins and Jack Viney
• IN - Robinson/Roughhead, SJ and Michael Evans

Note these are not Upgrades but rather 'Corrective Trades' as I could of had these players in my initial SuperCoach team. Yes, my team is horrible, but I'm not going to die wondering

If it is trading to upgrade then you probably shouldn't as you won't have enough funds to make it worthwhile.

Port Adelaide Premiums

If you have loaded up on a few Port Adelaide mid-pricers you will be very happy. The main success stories include the following Port Adelaide players:

• MID - Kane Cornes (Ave 142, $580,200, up $81,200)
• MID - Chad Wingard (Ave 113, $425,900, up $149,400)
• FWD - Justin Westhoff (Ave 141, $572,400, up $141,700)
• FWD/MID - Angus Monfries (Ave 104, $436,900, up $80,200)

Now Port Adelaide are 4-0 and you can only play as well as what is put in front of you, namely Melbourne GWS, Adelaide and Gold Coast. Therefore, while Port Adelaide have had a soft draw, you must give credit to Port Adelaide for their start.

I have read that some people intend to trade in some of the Port Adeliade mid-pricers who are now consistered as a premium, such as Justin Westhoff. My view is be careful in trading these players.

If you intend trading in any of the above players, don't forget you are starting from scratch. That is while Westhoff has average 141 in his first 4 games, you didn't get the benefit of his previous 4 scores.

By trading in Westhoff it means you are effectively saying Westhoff ($572,400) plus $17,400 is a better SuperCoach prospect than Buddy Franklin ($589,800), noting Port Adelaide have had a softer draw than Hawthorn. Another example is like saying Kane Cornes ($580,200) is a better selection than Patrick Dangerfield ($566,700) plus $13,500.

Personally, I'd rather Buddy Franklin and Dangerfield than Westhoff and Cornes.

I'm not saying not to select any of the above, but just to remember when you decide to pick these Port Adelaide players, you need to compare their price as of today and also ignore their current average and the points they have scored as you don't get them.

BreakEvens on SuperCoach Gold

Just from a simplicity point of view, generally I use the breakevens from SuperCoach Gold for all my articles and for any comments on this site. You would expect that the breakevens from SuperCoach Gold would be correct.

However, I have read on Twitter that there are suggestions that SuperCoach Gold may be incorrect, which may or may not be the case. Either way, SuperCoach Gold should be accurate and if not, then they should be close enough for the purposes of the articles.

Special Mentions

• FC Hammer for winning the Round 3 Weekly Prize ($1,000) and was 8th overall (after Round 3)
• SuperCoach Scores League Division 1 for being the 14th overall league in the land (after Round 4)

 

[Rowsus]

BreakEvens on SuperCoach Gold

Just from a simplicity point of view, generally I use the breakevens from SuperCoach Gold for all my articles and for any comments on this site. You would expect that the breakevens from SuperCoach Gold would be correct.

However, I have read on Twitter that there are suggestions that SuperCoach Gold may be incorrect, which may or may not be the case. Either way, SuperCoach Gold should be accurate and if not, then they should be close enough for the purposes of the articles.

There is definitely something strange happening this year. I can't say it is the B/E's that are wrong, but it seems to be the only thing that makes sense. Compared to previous years, the pricing has gone a bit crazy!!!!
Here are some examples of what I'm talking about:

The published B/E's on SC Gold are consistently within +/-0.3% of the following formula:

(3 x price / 5350) - score 1 - score 2 = B/E,

where score 1 was the score registered 2 games ago, and score 2 was the score registered last game.

3 examples:

Ablett: (681,200 x 3/5350) - 112 - 131 = 138.98, current B/E 139.

Kennedy JJ: (411,600 x 3/5350) - 136 - 68 = 26.80, current B/E 27.

Goodes: (294,000 x 3/5350) - 85 - 108 = -28.14, current B/E -28.

So we can see there is a consistency in their calculation of the B/E's. But the question remains, is this the right method, or are CD using something different?
The price adjustments appear to be all over place.
Try and understand how they came up with these figures.


[table="width: 650, align: left"]
[tr]
[td]Player[/td]
[td]B/E[/td]
[td]score[/td]
[td]und/over[/td]
[td]pr change[/td]
[td]$/und/over[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Fyfe[/td]
[td]38[/td]
[td]103[/td]
[td]+65[/td]
[td]+$20,800[/td]
[td]+$320.00[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Moloney[/td]
[td]16[/td]
[td]79[/td]
[td]+63[/td]
[td]+$21,600[/td]
[td]+$342.86[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Monfries[/td]
[td]8[/td]
[td]82[/td]
[td]+74[/td]
[td]+$26,200[/td]
[td]+$354.05[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Westhoff[/td]
[td]-33[/td]
[td]149[/td]
[td]+182[/td]
[td]$72,200[/td]
[td]+$396.70[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Wines[/td]
[td]-29[/td]
[td]91[/td]
[td]+120[/td]
[td]+$48,700[/td]
[td]+$405.83[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Ablett[/td]
[td]192[/td]
[td]131[/td]
[td]-61[/td]
[td]-$37,600[/td]
[td]-$616.39[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Murphy[/td]
[td]120[/td]
[td]98[/td]
[td]-22[/td]
[td]-$18,600[/td]
[td]-$845.46[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Dangerfield[/td]
[td]135[/td]
[td]120[/td]
[td]-15[/td]
[td]-$15,500[/td]
[td]-$1033.33[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

I can't see any logical link between:
Ablett dropping $616 per point he fell short of his B/E, while Murphy and Dangerfield fell $845 and $1033 respectively.
Westhoff rising $396 per point over his B/E and Fyfe only rising $320 per point, with players of various price and standing having their rate of change somewhere in between.
There used to be a consistency in this rate of change, I'm 99% sure of it. Unfortunately, I don't have any figures to back this up.
This leaves us with 2 possibilities:
CD have radically changed how players prices are now calculated.
Or the more likely, but equally perplexing
SC Gold is using the wrong method to calculate and publish their B/E's. SC gold's method of calculating the B/E, which I have demonstrated above, seems to lack a component of the "magic number" changing.
I will do further calculations, and see if I can find something that allows us to calculate either the B/E that CD are basing their price changes on, or how the magic number changing might explain the above anomalies.

 

[tracygrims]

Viney is +$83.9k for the season so far. The choice is either trade him now, or wait for a slow burn until he reaches 300k which now will have been set back at least three rounds and might not happen until round 10. Now assuming that you upgrade to a accurately valued player, you will get: $*roundsremaining/magicnumber points for your season score either by using the 83.9k from Viney now or approx 190k in round 10.

Using the assumption of a magic number reducing linearly over the season from 5400 to 4800 (source), you can see how much money you would need to increase your overall score by 100 points by round:

thus if you use the 83k from Viney now you should get approximately 300 points (84/28*100), if you let him burn until round 10 and then trade him out you will get maybe 190k which can be used to increase your total score by 475 points (190/40*100). So you will still increase your score by more if you trade Viney out later, but this doesn't count what you could be doing with Evans, Mayes or whoever you decide on.

If we extended the situation, assuming Evans reaches 250k in round 10, the money used from him will give you 340 points (136/40*100) for the season. In the slow burn case, if Viney is traded to another rookie who then reaches 250k in round 17, the money could be used 162 points (135/83*100).

So by using 2 trades the quick trade case you will have 640 points and in the slow burn case you will have increased your score by only 637!

Trades are worth more when used early!

 

[Rowsus]

It is a really interesting read, thanks Tracy.
The magic number doesn't actually decrease on a linear scale. It decreases quicker early in the season, reducing down to very small reductions later in the season. This is due to the fact that early in the season the Rookies as a group appreciate in larger numbers and at a faster rate, than the Rookies as a group appreciate later in the season.
Given the other vagaries, such as being able to use all the money you receive from a trade, players being subbed etc it would seem the 3 point difference your post shows is near enough to call it a draw.
I do love a statistical post! Thanks again, it was super to read!

edit - Tracy, you will see below that the magic number has already fallen from 5,350 preseason to 5,044 in round 4. This demonstrates that the fall is bigger and quicker early in the season, than it is later. Otherwise, on a linear scale it will fall below 4,000 by seasons end.

 

[Rowsus]

SC Gold is using the wrong method to calculate and publish their B/E's. SC gold's method of calculating the B/E, which I have demonstrated above, seems to lack a component of the "magic number" changing.
I will do further calculations, and see if I can find something that allows us to calculate either the B/E that CD are basing their price changes on, or how the magic number changing might explain the above anomalies.

OK, I've performed a simultaneous equation on Dangerfield and Ablett to work out what I think CD are using for their pricing. I then plugged in what I found from those equations to be the pricing factor, and magic number for round 4 into Murphy's numbers, and it gave me his round 4 price change close enough to spot on.

What I found was, if in the B/E equations above, I substitute 5,044.576 as the magic number for round 4, and use that to generate B/E's I get a pricing factor of $439.93 for every point under/over the B/E.

Let me demonstrate.

Fyfe - price after round 3 $523,700 / scores in rounds 2 & 3 -> 127 & 129 / SC Gold B/E for round 4 -> 38

3 x 523,700/5,044.576 - 127 - 129 = 55.44 -> 55 is what I believe his B/E should have been published as.

When we look at his round 4 score we see he got 103, or 48 (47.56 really) over what his B/E should have been.

47.56 x $439.93 = $20,923 - actual price shift $20,800 the $123 difference can be explained in decimal points earlier in the season/equation.


Wines - price after round 3 $255,900 / scores in rounds 2 & 3 -> 51 & 121 / SC Gold B/E for round 4 -> -29

3 x 255,900/5044.576 - 51 - 121 = -19.82 -> -20 is what i believe his B/E should have been published as.

When we look at his round 4 score, we see he got 91, or 111 (110.82 really) over what his B/E should have been.

110.82 x $439.93 = $48,752 - actual price shift $48,700, once again basically the right answer.


I think this conclusively proves that the published B/E's are wrong. My figures for round 4 of magic number = 5,044.6 and pricing factor for each point under or over is $440 has worked on the 5 players I have plugged it into now - Fyfe and Wines above, and Ablett, Dangerfield and Murphy to calculate them.

The obvious question becomes, what should the B/E's be?
To answer that, you need to know what the magic number will fall to in round 5. As I have no idea what that is, I can't answer that for you, sorry.
The best you can use is an approximation along these lines

B/E = (3 x current price / 5000) - last weeks score - week befores score

 

[Slammer]

In the past few rounds, we may have made some 'corrective trades' as we may have missed 'cash cows' on the bubble or decided to release a 'fallen premium'. This round theoretical, we should not make trades in SuperCoach. The main reason is that our cash cows may have not matured to an optimal level, say $300,000. What we should do in theory and we do in practice is usually not the same and SuperCoach is no different.

Jack Viney

Jack Viney is currently priced at $193,400 and has a breakeven of 28. At the projected SuperCoach Gold score of 62, Viney is expected to increase by $15,000. However, some people may be tempted to move him on, mainly due to his last score of 9 (subbed off). Clearly, trading out Viney as a cash cow is currently not at an acceptable level and we would generally hope to make another $100,000 on Viney as a cash cow.

So the question is do we trade Viney out?

Broadly, there are two schools of thought:

1. Keep Viney and ride the last score of 9 as even with a projected score of 62, Viney is expected to increase by $15,000. Furthermore, as there a number of cash cows moo-ing, you can only trade 2 cash cows at a time therefore, it doesn't matter some cash cows take a bit longer maturing.
2. Trade Viney out now and bring in another cash cow on the bubble such as Michael Evans, Sam Mayes and company.

My personal view is that it really depends on your individual circumstances.

If the extra $77,500 ($193,400 - $115,900) can help you trade in super premium instead of a premium, then arguably this is acceptable, especially if you bring in a cash cow on the bubble.

Generally, it is not recommended as you are effectively cashing in your cash cow too early. However, if you can get an extra premium then perhaps it's okay.

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 770, align: center"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]Position
[/TD]
[TD]Name
[/TD]
[TD]Cost ($)
[/TD]
[TD]Cost (PPG)
[/TD]
[TD]Average
[/TD]
[TD]Prior
[/TD]
[TD]R3
[/TD]
[TD]BE
[/TD]
[TD]SC Gold
[/TD]
[TD]Increase
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MID
[/TD]
[TD]Michael Evans
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$115,900
[/TD]
[TD]22
[/TD]
[TD]82
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]48
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]116
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-99
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]58
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$70,000
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MID/FWD
[/TD]
[TD]Sam Mayes
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$164,500
[/TD]
[TD]31
[/TD]
[TD]75
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]72
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]78
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-58
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]74
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$59,200
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]MID
[/TD]
[TD]Jack Viney
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$193,400
[/TD]
[TD]36
[/TD]
[TD]62
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]71
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]9
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]28
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]62
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]$15,000
[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

Michael Evans v Sam Mayes

For me, Michael Evans is a clear winner here with a lower base price ($48,600 difference) with his last score of 116, which means that with 3 game weighted average, the 116 will be included in the next 2 games. In these circumstances, 'A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush' strategy may be appropriate. Now Mayes does have the advantage of DPP (MID/FWD) and appears to have more job security. I don't think it can be faulted to choose Mayes over Evans, especially if you are happy to wait and need the MID/FWD attribute, but Evans for me.

Is It Too Early Trade?

I don't think it's early to trade, if they are 'corrective trades'.

I am thinking of doing the following:

• OUT - Josh Jenkins and Jack Viney
• IN - Robinson/Roughhead, SJ and Michael Evans

Note these are not Upgrades but rather 'Corrective Trades' as I could of had these players in my initial SuperCoach team. Yes, my team is horrible, but I'm not going to die wondering

If it is trading to upgrade then you probably shouldn't as you won't have enough funds to make it worthwhile.

Port Adelaide Premiums

If you have loaded up on a few Port Adelaide mid-pricers you will be very happy. The main success stories include the following Port Adelaide players:

• MID - Kane Cornes (Ave 142, $580,200, up $81,200)
• MID - Chad Wingard (Ave 113, $425,900, up $149,400)
• FWD - Justin Westhoff (Ave 141, $572,400, up $141,700)
• FWD/MID - Angus Monfries (Ave 104, $436,900, up $80,200)

Now Port Adelaide are 4-0 and you can only play as well as what is put in front of you, namely Melbourne GWS, Adelaide and Gold Coast. Therefore, while Port Adelaide have had a soft draw, you must give credit to Port Adelaide for their start.

I have read that some people intend to trade in some of the Port Adeliade mid-pricers who are now consistered as a premium, such as Justin Westhoff. My view is be careful in trading these players.

If you intend trading in any of the above players, don't forget you are starting from scratch. That is while Westhoff has average 141 in his first 4 games, you didn't get the benefit of his previous 4 scores.

By trading in Westhoff it means you are effectively saying Westhoff ($572,400) plus $17,400 is a better SuperCoach prospect than Buddy Franklin ($589,800), noting Port Adelaide have had a softer draw than Hawthorn. Another example is like saying Kane Cornes ($580,200) is a better selection than Patrick Dangerfield ($566,700) plus $13,500.

Personally, I'd rather Buddy Franklin and Dangerfield than Westhoff and Cornes.

I'm not saying not to select any of the above, but just to remember when you decide to pick these Port Adelaide players, you need to compare their price as of today and also ignore their current average and the points they have scored as you don't get them.

BreakEvens on SuperCoach Gold

Just from a simplicity point of view, generally I use the breakevens from SuperCoach Gold for all my articles and for any comments on this site. You would expect that the breakevens from SuperCoach Gold would be correct.

However, I have read on Twitter that there are suggestions that SuperCoach Gold may be incorrect, which may or may not be the case. Either way, SuperCoach Gold should be accurate and if not, then they should be close enough for the purposes of the articles.

Special Mentions

• FC Hammer for winning the Round 3 Weekly Prize ($1,000) and was 8th overall (after Round 3)
• SuperCoach Scores League Division 1 for being the 14th overall league in the land (after Round 4)

Great article Inpromptu.

Hill is another one who I have, which I may look to offload.
However apart from Kreuzer (currently on the bench) I do not really have an super premium upgrade target atm.
May hold onto Viney and Hill for a while to get the most out of them.
As you say if they are not corrective trades then there is really no point unless they are a must have rookie.
I am still thinking if Viney gets rested this week then he may have to go for Evans or Mayes (gives me MPP link).

 

[Rockydunlop]

I will make the decision alot easier for all.....Jack Viney will be rested this week and he wont be on the plane to Brisbane. SEN report.

 

[Blaze]

Viney out means keep for me. I now can use captain and rookie loophole this week and save a trade!

 

[quickie]

Jay, great article.

I like the discussion on the Port Adelaide players. I loaded up really heavy in round 1 due to fixtures, so wondering what your thoughts are on when to let go of them?

I don't really see either Boak or Monfries as keepers.

 

[tracygrims]

Initially I was thinking Evans would be the best cashcow option this week, I'm beginning to change my mind to Mayes.
If you take the bird in the hand philosphy, Evans will definitely increase value by more than 100 in the next 2 games if he records basically any score. Mayes will be a bit slower, but I think has better medium term potential.

If we think of Evans' last quarter vs GWS as an outlier in Melbourne's 10-goal match-winning quater, Evans' average this year would be closer to 60ppg. If he scores at this average for the next 4 games, his price will rise by approximately 150.
This is the same as if Mayes scores his average of 75 for the next 4 rounds. After 4 rounds though, Mayes will continue to grow at a stronger rate than Evans.

The thing other thing splitting them is job security, which Mayes wins. So I think if you have enough cash, go for Mayes.

 

[Bobbie]

Initially I was thinking Evans would be the best cashcow option this week, I'm beginning to change my mind to Mayes.
If you take the bird in the hand philosphy, Evans will definitely increase value by more than 100 in the next 2 games if he records basically any score. Mayes will be a bit slower, but I think has better medium term potential.

If we think of Evans' last quarter vs GWS as an outlier in Melbourne's 10-goal match-winning quater, Evans' average this year would be closer to 60ppg. If he scores at this average for the next 4 games, his price will rise by approximately 150.
This is the same as if Mayes scores his average of 75 for the next 4 rounds. After 4 rounds though, Mayes will continue to grow at a stronger rate than Evans.

The thing other thing splitting them is job security, which Mayes wins. So I think if you have enough cash, go for Mayes.

Mayes certainly seems to be the better option. Just disappointed that a Viney to Mayes trade will only generate around 30K. Not ideal but I think the JS, negative B/E and mid/fwd status adds a bit more value.

 

[Drew]

Wow a great read guys, very interesting reading on the B/E's, i wonder if anyone else has worked that out.

 

[WandP]

I need to re-read this after i've stopped drinking wine.

 

[Impromptu]

I need to re-read this after i've stopped drinking wine.

LOL however you may need to starting drinking wine after you re-read it

Great stuff from all involved with the above discussion.

 

[Craig]

Rich out for 8 weeks would make Mayes job security that little bit safer

 

[IDIG]

I need to re-read this after i've stopped drinking wine.

Haha this. Now the obvious question is, it's been 10 hours since you've made this post, have you stopped drinking yet?

 

[IDIG]

I have read that some people intend to trade in some of the Port Adeliade mid-pricers who are now consistered as a premium, such as Justin Westhoff. My view is be careful in trading these players.

If you intend trading in any of the above players, don't forget you are starting from scratch. That is while Westhoff has average 141 in his first 4 games, you didn't get the benefit of his previous 4 scores.
....
I'm not saying not to select any of the above, but just to remember when you decide to pick these Port Adelaide players, you need to compare their price as of today and also ignore their current average and the points they have scored as you don't get them.

This is so relevant it's not funny. Not to say that these guys can't keep up their form but history strongly suggests they will come back to earth at some stage. Anyone remember Stanton's start to last year?

The other important thing to note is the part i bolded above. The scores the premiums you trade in are the only ones that matter...for me JPK is averaging 80 as a player for me. This is part of the reason why most tend to trade in fallen/under performing premiums who have a history of scoring at a certain level, because they generally correct that average at some stage.

 

[IDIG]

I can't see any logical link between:
Ablett dropping $616 per point he fell short of his B/E, while Murphy and Dangerfield fell $845 and $1033 respectively.
Westhoff rising $396 per point over his B/E and Fyfe only rising $320 per point, with players of various price and standing having their rate of change somewhere in between.
There used to be a consistency in this rate of change, I'm 99% sure of it. Unfortunately, I don't have any figures to back this up.
This leaves us with 2 possibilities:
CD have radically changed how players prices are now calculated.
Or the more likely, but equally perplexing
SC Gold is using the wrong method to calculate and publish their B/E's. SC gold's method of calculating the B/E, which I have demonstrated above, seems to lack a component of the "magic number" changing.
I will do further calculations, and see if I can find something that allows us to calculate either the B/E that CD are basing their price changes on, or how the magic number changing might explain the above anomalies.

Wow this is crazy. It would be really interesting to see how CD would explain that because it makes no sense at all. From memory there has always been an obvious consistency with regard to price changes week to week.

thus if you use the 83k from Viney now you should get approximately 300 points (84/28*100), if you let him burn until round 10 and then trade him out you will get maybe 190k which can be used to increase your total score by 475 points (190/40*100). So you will still increase your score by more if you trade Viney out later, but this doesn't count what you could be doing with Evans, Mayes or whoever you decide on.

If we extended the situation, assuming Evans reaches 250k in round 10, the money used from him will give you 340 points (136/40*100) for the season. In the slow burn case, if Viney is traded to another rookie who then reaches 250k in round 17, the money could be used 162 points (135/83*100).

So by using 2 trades the quick trade case you will have 640 points and in the slow burn case you will have increased your score by only 637!

Trades are worth more when used early!

Great points and the main one that stands out to me is who you bring in for slow burning Viney that you now have to wait that extra 3 weeks for before making any decent cash. Now that he is to miss this week and maybe a vest candidate after that, trading him to an Evans is the right risk/reward type of rookie trade to make.

 

[Torress]

no cow culling yet. if Docherty steps up with a nice score next week that will be different. also if kerridge can find a spot he could be handy next week too with the link.