Competitions AFL Fantasy Trading Comp

[Goodie's Guns]

Don't mind the side that has been drawn up, as I'm new to Fantasy I'm not 100% over the scoring and pricing situation, but it looks decent to me.

Happy with the proposal of Higgins to Worpel also. I'm also with jaca on the call that we maybe missing some top tier mid options with quite a few mid-pricers in the side. Could we maybe drop a DEF, or a Libba/Sheed to try and get in another top end MID like Oliver/Brayshaw/Neale?

 

[Herbie66]

Just having a quick look at it now , appears to be :-

2-2-4
2-4-4
1-1-2
2-2-4

appears to be a good even spread.

the biggest problem I find in this format is the price rises don't seem as good as in SC and it can be sometimes difficult to raise the $$$.

I guess you just need to let the rookies moo and use the 2 trades each week sideways premiums and mid-pricers if you want too.

Good concept to see the difference in scores at the end of the comp if we are all starting the same

@stephen well done putting the side together , be quite hard taking into account people's ideas and suggestions

 

[Rowsus]

Sounds good and always willing to learn ... have used that site as a guide for many years and found it to be pretty reliable in this format.

From the rules I also found this ...
View attachment 7194

View attachment 7195

Footywire is one of my favourite sites, and I've been using it as a resource for years now.
Unfortunately, like every other stat site, except maybe Afltables, they have the occassional "flaw". I will give footywire their props though, as they have very very few!
I was assuming AFL Fantasy was using a pricing model similar to BBL SC, who also change prices after one game.
I'm 99% certain the last few games from 2018 won't affect the price changes, and if you look at footywires current B/E's for SC, you will see the type of flaws I'm talking about. Some players have SC B/E's, and others don't, where in reality, no player can possibly have a SC B/E yet!
Now, because the model is slightly different to what I was expecting, lets look at 6 examples of price changes from Round 1 last season.
Looking at non-Rookie players, who had the biggest price movements, and a few that didn't alter in price at all.
Z Merrett was $825,000 and fell $56,000 after scoring a 23 - 2017 ave 117.1
R Burton was $594,000 and fell $39,000 after scoring a 19 - 2017 ave 84.4
A Young was $387,000 and rose $33,000 after scoring a 112 - 2017 ave 55.0
L Franklin was $677,000 and rose $31,000 after scoring a 151 - 2017 ave 96.1
J Kelly maintained his opening price of $795,000 with a score of 115 - 2017 ave 112.9
J Newnes maintained his opening price of $621,000 with a score of 90 - 2017 ave 88.1

Base prices:
$825,000/117.1 = 7,045.3 ...... $594,000/84.4 = 7,037.9
$387,000/55.0 = 7,036.4 ....... $677,000/96.1 = 7,044.7
$795,000/112.9 = 7,041.6 ....... $621,000/88.1 = 7,048.8

That's pretty consistent, and if we take an average, we get a starting MN of 7,042.5

I'm doing these calcs on the fly, so I'm not sure of the answers myself yet.

Let's look at some players that had little or no change in price, after Round 1 was played.
Kelly scored (115-112.9)/112.9x100 = 1.86% above his previous average for no change.
Newnes scored (90-88.1)/88.1x100 = 2.16% above his previous average for no change
Newnes may be further proof that previous seasons scores don't count in prices changes, as his last few scores in 2017 were not good!
Patton scored (74-71.3)/71.3x100 = 3.79% above his previous average, and went up $1,000
Shuey scored (102-98.9)/98.9x100 = 3.13% above his previous average, and went up $1,000
Neale scored (100-100.3)/100.3x100 = 0.30 below his previous average, and fell $1,000
Wingard scored (92-92.2)/92.2x100 = 0.22 below his previous average, and fell $1,000

Once again, all those numbers look pretty consistent, for the model I'm proposing, and would indicate the MN fell by around 2% from Rnd 1 to Rnd 2.

To be continued.

 

[Rowsus]

The model for AFL Fantasy pricing is a little more complicated than SC.
As each round is played, the model becomes slightly more complicated to look at, however the early Rounds, particularly Round 1, are simpl(ish) to look at.

A simplified version of the Rnd 1 price change model.

The new price = old price x W + score x (1 - W) x MN x R
W = weighting given to the old price, usually in Rnd 1 this is a little above 90%
R = the factor the MN has changed by

Let's use A Young and L Franklin in a simultaneous equation, to see what values we come up with for W and R. Keep in mind, the prices and price changes are heavily rounded (to the nearest 1,000) so this calculation is VERY approximate. You'd need to do a string of these equations to get a better approximate.

A Young: 420,000 = 387,000 x W + 112 x (1 - W) x 7042 x R
L Franklin 708,000 = 677,000 x W + 151 x (1 - W) x 7042 x R

Using A Young's equation to get a value for R, we get:

R = (420,000 - 387,000 x W)/((1 - W) x 788,704)

plug that into L Franklins equation, and you get:

708,000 = 677,000 x W + 151 x (1 - W) x 7042 x (420,000 - 387,000 x W)/((1 - W) x 788,704)

When we solve that, we find W = 0.9131 ie. 91.31% of a players Round 1 price carries through to Round 2, and only 8.69% of his price is open to adjustment. This becomes quite different as each progressive Round is played.

When we use that value to solve a value for R we get R = 1.092

Keep in mind, as I stated, these values are very approximate, because of the big rounding factor.

Based on these figures, only 8.7% of a players price is open for adjustment (so if a player scored a 0, he would drop by 8.7%.)
To maintain his value, a player needs to score at:

0.913 + (0.087 x 1.092) x last years average => 100.8% of last years average. (again, approx, rounding etc.)

Footywire have:
Witherden at a B/E of 147, I have him on a B/E of 88.0 x 1.008 = 89
Worpel at a B/E of 17, I have him on a B/E of 68.2 x 1.008 = 69

Because over 90% of a players price is retained after Round 1, it is the round with the lowest relative price adjustments, as each round progresses, that retained % for each round drops. Just as an example, after Round 2 it might be 86% of the original price is retained + 6% of the Round 1 adjusted price, and again, 8% is open to adjustment etc.

Quite happy to say I'm wrong, but let's see how it works out.

 

[stephen]

So, I think it's fair to say there is a groundswell of support for ditching Jack Higgins, probably to be replaced by Worpel, unless we find a more creative way of getting that position up to a proper premo, or down to a good cash cow.

As for getting in an extra mid premo, I think we should put together a few options and then put up a poll. For the moment I am assuming Constable is not named, but if he is, I would put him in place of Gibbons. I'm thinking something along these lines.

Sheed + Liberatore
v
Coniglio/Brayshaw/Cripps + Gibbons

I think because of the format it's pretty simple in this game - you just pick the one you think will get the most points, rather than factoring in whether one will cost more trades.

If people think there are good cash cows I've missed that we should be including, please put them forward. Obviously teams will tell a tale on that. Clark is the main one I like that didn't make it. In the end his price of 242k (priced to 33) made him less appealing than the midprice options for me. But if people have some XvYs around that they would like to propose, let's put them in a poll.

I am also open to cutting Macrae down to a cheaper mid premo if it gets us something good. If anyone has an XvY around that, I'd be all for it.

EDIT: Clark v Duursma is an obvious XvY as well. I'm actually not sure which way I fall on that myself.

 

[Tails]

The model for AFL Fantasy pricing is a little more complicated than SC.
As each round is played, the model becomes slightly more complicated to look at, however the early Rounds, particularly Round 1, are simpl(ish) to look at.

A simplified version of the Rnd 1 price change model.

The new price = old price x W + score x (1 - W) x MN x R
W = weighting given to the old price, usually in Rnd 1 this is a little above 90%
R = the factor the MN has changed by

Let's use A Young and L Franklin in a simultaneous equation, to see what values we come up with for W and R. Keep in mind, the prices and price changes are heavily rounded (to the nearest 1,000) so this calculation is VERY approximate. You'd need to do a string of these equations to get a better approximate.

A Young: 420,000 = 387,000 x W + 112 x (1 - W) x 7042 x R
L Franklin 708,000 = 677,000 x W + 151 x (1 - W) x 7042 x R

Using A Young's equation to get a value for R, we get:

R = (420,000 - 387,000 x W)/((1 - W) x 788,704)

plug that into L Franklins equation, and you get:

708,000 = 677,000 x W + 151 x (1 - W) x 7042 x (420,000 - 387,000 x W)/((1 - W) x 788,704)

When we solve that, we find W = 0.9131 ie. 91.31% of a players Round 1 price carries through to Round 2, and only 8.69% of his price is open to adjustment. This becomes quite different as each progressive Round is played.

When we use that value to solve a value for R we get R = 1.092

Keep in mind, as I stated, these values are very approximate, because of the big rounding factor.

Based on these figures, only 8.7% of a players price is open for adjustment (so if a player scored a 0, he would drop by 8.7%.)
To maintain his value, a player needs to score at:

0.913 + (0.087 x 1.092) x last years average => 100.8% of last years average. (again, approx, rounding etc.)

Footywire have:
Witherden at a B/E of 147, I have him on a B/E of 88.0 x 1.008 = 89
Worpel at a B/E of 17, I have him on a B/E of 68.2 x 1.008 = 69

Because over 90% of a players price is retained after Round 1, it is the round with the lowest relative price adjustments, as each round progresses, that retained % for each round drops. Just as an example, after Round 2 it might be 86% of the original price is retained + 6% of the Round 1 adjusted price, and again, 8% is open to adjustment etc.

Quite happy to say I'm wrong, but let's see how it works out.

Great posts and very insightful to read. Never seen BE's posted for round 1 before so might just ignore them in this format until later rounds as per usual.

 

[Darkie]

Was thinking a bit more about this overnight. Happy to be corrected if I’ve got this wrong!

- It seems like its very difficult to start what would normally be considered a good side in SC or DT. The budget just doesn’t allow it.

- That means there are more upgrades to do and more cash generation needed to do them. On the positive side, prices move earlier, and we have more trades.

- This suggests a focus on value, more mid pricers, etc (which we have).

- I’m wondering whether it also means we should avoid any premiums we think won’t match their starting prices, unless they are required for captain purposes. Most look fine to me on this basis, but I’m wondering about Grundy? He’s a decent captain option but likely behind Macrae (who I view as a lock in this format), and (surprisngly) even Gawn in this format? We also have Danger.

- Maybe Grundy to Goldy or similar could be considered, if we think Grundy could start a bit slow (toe) or simply struggle to match last year’s heights? Could also help raise cash for changes elsewhere.

 

[Shaahorn]

I only started re-looking on SCS a week or so ago and have been keeping a close eye on this thread as I have never played AFL Fantasy. If the side is announced early enough I will add it as my own side into the competition and keep track of where I am relative to everyone else who is in your league, I really like the idea of this.

 

[Connoisseur]

Was thinking a bit more about this overnight. Happy to be corrected if I’ve got this wrong!

- It seems like its very difficult to start what would normally be considered a good side in SC or DT. The budget just doesn’t allow it.

- That means there are more upgrades to do and more cash generation needed to do them. On the positive side, prices move earlier, and we have more trades.

- This suggests a focus on value, more mid pricers, etc (which we have).

- I’m wondering whether it also means we should avoid any premiums we think won’t match their starting prices, unless they are required for captain purposes. Most look fine to me on this basis, but I’m wondering about Grundy? He’s a decent captain option but likely behind Macrae (who I view as a lock in this format), and (surprisngly) even Gawn in this format? We also have Danger.

- Maybe Grundy to Goldy or similar could be considered, if we think Grundy could start a bit slow (toe) or simply struggle to match last year’s heights? Could also help raise cash for changes elsewhere.

An option could be
Out: J Macrae, B Grundy, J Higgins, D Sheed, B Crouch
In: A Brayshaw, T Goldstein, J Worpel, Z Merrett, L Shuey

 

[Diabolical]

I only started re-looking on SCS a week or so ago and have been keeping a close eye on this thread as I have never played AFL Fantasy. If the side is announced early enough I will add it as my own side into the competition and keep track of where I am relative to everyone else who is in your league, I really like the idea of this.

That’s great - the more the merrier.

I have just set up an open group to run along side this comp so we can have as many as we like in it if anyone else is a late interest in this too.

Members from our league comp can join this as well if you have a league available.

League code: DZRMRUED

 

[Tails]

Was thinking a bit more about this overnight. Happy to be corrected if I’ve got this wrong!

- It seems like its very difficult to start what would normally be considered a good side in SC or DT. The budget just doesn’t allow it.

- That means there are more upgrades to do and more cash generation needed to do them. On the positive side, prices move earlier, and we have more trades.

- This suggests a focus on value, more mid pricers, etc (which we have).

- I’m wondering whether it also means we should avoid any premiums we think won’t match their starting prices, unless they are required for captain purposes. Most look fine to me on this basis, but I’m wondering about Grundy? He’s a decent captain option but likely behind Macrae (who I view as a lock in this format), and (surprisngly) even Gawn in this format? We also have Danger.

- Maybe Grundy to Goldy or similar could be considered, if we think Grundy could start a bit slow (toe) or simply struggle to match last year’s heights? Could also help raise cash for changes elsewhere.

I think we need at least one COL player though as the first 6 weeks allow the loophole to be used for early games ... next opportunity doesn't arise to around the byes .... doesn't need to be Grundy though ...

Round 1: RIC v CAR have the early game (current team has no option)
Round 2: RIC v COL have the early game (Grundy at the moment)
Round 3: ADE v GEE have the early game (Paddy, Crouch boys)
Round 4: MEL v SYD have the early game (Heeney at a stretch)
Round 5: COL v BRI and ESS v NTH have the early games (Grundy at the moment)
Round 6: COL v ESS and RIC v MEL have the early games (Grundy at the moment)

 

[Shaahorn]

That’s great - the more the merrier.

I have just set up an open group to run along side this comp so we can have as many as we like in it if anyone else is a late interest in this too.

Members from our league comp can join this as well if you have a league available.

League code: DZRMRUED

Thanks for that, I've joined that now.

 

[Diabolical]

Thanks for that, I've joined that now.

Well that’s two of us! Hopefully a few from the other group jump in as well!

 

[Darkie]

I think we need at least one COL player though as the first 6 weeks allow the loophole to be used for early games ... next opportunity doesn't arise to around the byes .... doesn't need to be Grundy though ...

Round 1: RIC v CAR have the early game (current team has no option)
Round 2: RIC v COL have the early game (Grundy at the moment)
Round 3: ADE v GEE have the early game (Paddy, Crouch boys)
Round 4: MEL v SYD have the early game (Heeney at a stretch)
Round 5: COL v BRI and ESS v NTH have the early games (Grundy at the moment)
Round 6: COL v ESS and RIC v MEL have the early games (Grundy at the moment)

View attachment 7232

This is a strong point, and should be factored in (I wasn’t aware the loop applied in this format).

Gawn and Dusty could be viable options if we wanted to remove Grundy, or simply bolster the VC loop options.

Perhaps we are not concerned about Grundy, though, or don’t mind overpaying a bit for his VC/C value?

 

[stephen]

I think we need at least one COL player though as the first 6 weeks allow the loophole to be used for early games ... next opportunity doesn't arise to around the byes .... doesn't need to be Grundy though ...

Round 1: RIC v CAR have the early game (current team has no option)
Round 2: RIC v COL have the early game (Grundy at the moment)
Round 3: ADE v GEE have the early game (Paddy, Crouch boys)
Round 4: MEL v SYD have the early game (Heeney at a stretch)
Round 5: COL v BRI and ESS v NTH have the early games (Grundy at the moment)
Round 6: COL v ESS and RIC v MEL have the early games (Grundy at the moment)

Must admit I didn't give a great deal of thought to Dusty but given his VC value in RD1 and 2 he seems a very good pick. One combo I played around with is:

Witherden + Sheed + Liberatore + Butters
v
Clark + Brayshaw + Dusty + Constable

Butters down to Constable is a bit of a cheat as if he's named I would find a way to get him in anyway, but it makes it possible.

That would give us VC options through the first six rounds and Macrae as our C option for that period.

If we were to ditch Grundy we could consider Treloar as the COL VC option. Or people could plan to trade in their own VC option when RD5 comes.

 

[KLo30]

No to Dusty.

 

[stephen]

No to Dusty.

Why?

 

[KLo30]

Why?

Other than a spike year he has no history to command a MID position in any team. Always been a great MID/FWD, but MID only there are 10+ ahead of him.

 

[stephen]

Other than a spike year he has no history to command a MID position in any team. Always been a great MID/FWD, but MID only there are 10+ ahead of him.

Two years running as a top 10 mid in this format (2016/17), and three years running (2015-2017) averaging 100+, missing no games in the process, and is priced at 93.

Think I probably have 10 ahead of him this year in this format, but very few who aren't fully priced, which seems a much more important factor in this game, given the trades, than having the very top players to start.

I'm certainly not wedded to him (given I left him out originally) but I think his hat belongs in the ring.

 

[Tails]

Must admit I didn't give a great deal of thought to Dusty but given his VC value in RD1 and 2 he seems a very good pick. One combo I played around with is:

Witherden + Sheed + Liberatore + Butters
v
Clark + Brayshaw + Dusty + Constable

Butters down to Constable is a bit of a cheat as if he's named I would find a way to get him in anyway, but it makes it possible.

That would give us VC options through the first six rounds and Macrae as our C option for that period.

If we were to ditch Grundy we could consider Treloar as the COL VC option. Or people could plan to trade in their own VC option when RD5 comes.

Don't mind the ins as it could set the first 6 round VC options up quite well but also think Rocky is the one I have ?? over (massive ceiling but not overly cheap though) ...could say keeping Sheed instead strengthen other lines ... interested in others thoughts.

Dusty is a bit of an enigma ... started good last year for a couple of rounds before getting injured ??


Those first 4 games were against CAR, ADE, HAW, BRI ...

Don't have him in any teams though at the moment ... but also can't find another RIC option that I'd be tempted to put the VC on in this format ... but in the back of my mind this is a trading game so he might not necessarily need to be a season long keeper (but would come at the cost of a trade)