Analysis 2024 AFL SC: Rolling Perfect Team [Post #242 onwards]
- Thread starter Beg2Differ
- Start date
You've done some amazing work so far, it's been fascinating to see the evolution.
I'm wondering if you could set some heuristics (or do it manually) and exclude a whole stack of players from the analysis to make the model run faster? You may be doing something like that already or have played with the idea but it could reduce the search space a lot.
I'm wondering if you could set some heuristics (or do it manually) and exclude a whole stack of players from the analysis to make the model run faster? You may be doing something like that already or have played with the idea but it could reduce the search space a lot.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
I suppose I could do some heuristics however first of all I would have to look up what that means.
I have resisted excluding players so far because working out exactly which ones I can exclude without affecting the result is quite tricky. However I have actually now done that and excluded the players yet to play at all which are not the 2 or three cheapest for each position. This reduced the variables from 50k to about 40k and should help.
The panacea for me was trying to shift the whole calc into a more powerful solver. I am using an a excel based solver called OpenSolver which is not that powerful however has been easy for me to pick up. I have been trying to work out how to do it in puLP via Solver Studio however the learning curve there is pretty steep. If anybody has any skills in that area and is keen to help then let me know.
I have resisted excluding players so far because working out exactly which ones I can exclude without affecting the result is quite tricky. However I have actually now done that and excluded the players yet to play at all which are not the 2 or three cheapest for each position. This reduced the variables from 50k to about 40k and should help.
The panacea for me was trying to shift the whole calc into a more powerful solver. I am using an a excel based solver called OpenSolver which is not that powerful however has been easy for me to pick up. I have been trying to work out how to do it in puLP via Solver Studio however the learning curve there is pretty steep. If anybody has any skills in that area and is keen to help then let me know.
I suppose I could do some heuristics however first of all I would have to look up what that means.
I have resisted excluding players so far because working out exactly which ones I can exclude without affecting the result is quite tricky. However I have actually now done that and excluded the players yet to play at all which are not the 2 or three cheapest for each position. This reduced the variables from 50k to about 40k and should help.
The panacea for me was trying to shift the whole calc into a more powerful solver. I am using an a excel based solver called OpenSolver which is not that powerful however has been easy for me to pick up. I have been trying to work out how to do it in puLP via Solver Studio however the learning curve there is pretty steep. If anybody has any skills in that area and is keen to help then let me know.
I have resisted excluding players so far because working out exactly which ones I can exclude without affecting the result is quite tricky. However I have actually now done that and excluded the players yet to play at all which are not the 2 or three cheapest for each position. This reduced the variables from 50k to about 40k and should help.
The panacea for me was trying to shift the whole calc into a more powerful solver. I am using an a excel based solver called OpenSolver which is not that powerful however has been easy for me to pick up. I have been trying to work out how to do it in puLP via Solver Studio however the learning curve there is pretty steep. If anybody has any skills in that area and is keen to help then let me know.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
Rolling perfect team after 12 rounds.
Total of 33,613 (avg 2801) compares to current leader at 27,143 (avg 2262).
Whilst it totally unrealistic that somebody could make all the right decisions to achieve a score anywhere near this it still staggers me that it is theoretically possible to achieve an average score of over 2800 per week particularly given there have been 3 best 18 rounds.
Total of 33,613 (avg 2801) compares to current leader at 27,143 (avg 2262).
Whilst it totally unrealistic that somebody could make all the right decisions to achieve a score anywhere near this it still staggers me that it is theoretically possible to achieve an average score of over 2800 per week particularly given there have been 3 best 18 rounds.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2015
- Messages
- 1,727
- Likes
- 2,336
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Hey mate is there any chance you would be able to treat us to a post Round 13 edition of the $5.5 million salary cap Perfect SuperCoach side as well as the $10 million version?
It would be great to see how the cheaper team compares to the top real life SC sides in the overall rankings both now and at the end of the season.
It would be great to see how the cheaper team compares to the top real life SC sides in the overall rankings both now and at the end of the season.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
I haven't run this for a while however I will be trying to run it for the full season after this round and this is a bit of a test run to see how long it would take. It took about 30 hours. Note this run only includes players that have played at least one game during the year so it may not be the theoretical max score.
This is the first run I have done where the maximum trade limit of 37 has applied so I was interested to see where those trades were saved. As it turns out it has only used 4 trades in round 2 and then used maximum for each round up until round 16 where it used 1 and then no trades in round 17.
This total score of 46918 (avg 2760) compares to the current leader of 38085 (avg 2240). Staggering that there is a 520 point difference between the averages.
This is the first run I have done where the maximum trade limit of 37 has applied so I was interested to see where those trades were saved. As it turns out it has only used 4 trades in round 2 and then used maximum for each round up until round 16 where it used 1 and then no trades in round 17.
This total score of 46918 (avg 2760) compares to the current leader of 38085 (avg 2240). Staggering that there is a 520 point difference between the averages.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
After a run that look no less than 56 hours, in the immortal words of Paul Roos, "Here it is". The following shows the team that I believe would have achieved the highest possible score for Supercoach 2020. That score was 49,781 achieved at an average of 2,766 and compares to the winning score 40,466 (avg 2,248).
I would encourage everybody to have a close look at this and post if they see any anomolies. This is obviously quite a complex thing to do and takes at lot of time and computer grunt to achieve it. As you know I have posted a rolling team during the year and therefore the logic is reasonably well tested how it is not impossible that there could be flaws in the logic I have developed. I have checked the trade numbers and scoring players and other high level things but was keen to get it out there so I haven't exactly scoured the results to validate it. The movement of DPP would be the thing I am least confident about.
I would reiterate my acknowledgement of the role @stevedwards played in me be able to achieve this. Without the guidance he offered me in learning about Mixed Integer Programming (for a different reason initially) there is no way I would have been able to do this.
Finally I would also encourage people to post any quirky things they notice about this team and I will start with a couple.
I would encourage everybody to have a close look at this and post if they see any anomolies. This is obviously quite a complex thing to do and takes at lot of time and computer grunt to achieve it. As you know I have posted a rolling team during the year and therefore the logic is reasonably well tested how it is not impossible that there could be flaws in the logic I have developed. I have checked the trade numbers and scoring players and other high level things but was keen to get it out there so I haven't exactly scoured the results to validate it. The movement of DPP would be the thing I am least confident about.
I would reiterate my acknowledgement of the role @stevedwards played in me be able to achieve this. Without the guidance he offered me in learning about Mixed Integer Programming (for a different reason initially) there is no way I would have been able to do this.
Finally I would also encourage people to post any quirky things they notice about this team and I will start with a couple.
- You had to start Jack Viney, make him captain in the first round, and then trade him out.
- You had to start Ben Cunnington and then trade him out for round 2.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
Could a ghost ship have won the overall comp? By that I mean could a team selected for round 1 with captain, vice and emergencies set and no trades made during the year scored higher than the overall winner. I believe the answer to that question is yes.
The following team would have scored a total of 40,902 points at an average of 2,264 and beaten the overall winner by 436 points (total 40,466 at an average of 2,248).
Note that whilst I believe this would be very close to the highest scoring team of this nature I don't actually think it is the max score achievable. I have tried to calculate that and when I do it actually sets 2 emergencies on the mid and forward lines which become relevant during the bye rounds. However making the model select the lowest non-zero scoring emergency in the situation when only 1 is required has proven quite tricky so haven't quite got that to work yet.
The following team would have scored a total of 40,902 points at an average of 2,264 and beaten the overall winner by 436 points (total 40,466 at an average of 2,248).
Note that whilst I believe this would be very close to the highest scoring team of this nature I don't actually think it is the max score achievable. I have tried to calculate that and when I do it actually sets 2 emergencies on the mid and forward lines which become relevant during the bye rounds. However making the model select the lowest non-zero scoring emergency in the situation when only 1 is required has proven quite tricky so haven't quite got that to work yet.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
Actually what would be interesting is comparing what a team actually scored with what they would have scored had they left their round 1 team untouched for the season. How much is that agonising you do every round actually worth? I wonder if any teams would actually have score more by leaving it.
If you can extract those teams then I could work that out.
If you can extract those teams then I could work that out.