- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
Analysis 2024 AFL SC: Rolling Perfect Team [Post #242 onwards]
- Thread starter Beg2Differ
- Start date
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
After a bit of trial and error I have discovered that if I introduce something called "branch and bound" tolerance to my score maximisation model it will solve much quicker. I don't know exactly what this means however assume it means that it isn't necessarily finding the absolute maximum score but something very close to it.
With that in mind the maximum score achievable up to round 15 (ie last week) was 40117 (avg 2674). This compares to the leader up to round 15 who had 33773 (avg 2252).
With that in mind the maximum score achievable up to round 15 (ie last week) was 40117 (avg 2674). This compares to the leader up to round 15 who had 33773 (avg 2252).
Nice work! Just out of interest, have you compared R14 and R13 using branch and bound vs. normal for accuracy?
A 'pure' branch and bound that isn't doing any heuristics or estimation to determine bounds should still search the entire space, so will find the same solution (but hopefully faster!). In a problem space like this it should be able to discard a large number of search directions because they will be... 'crap' basically
.
A 'pure' branch and bound that isn't doing any heuristics or estimation to determine bounds should still search the entire space, so will find the same solution (but hopefully faster!). In a problem space like this it should be able to discard a large number of search directions because they will be... 'crap' basically
.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
Nice work! Just out of interest, have you compared R14 and R13 using branch and bound vs. normal for accuracy?
A 'pure' branch and bound that isn't doing any heuristics or estimation to determine bounds should still search the entire space, so will find the same solution (but hopefully faster!). In a problem space like this it should be able to discard a large number of search directions because they will be... 'crap' basically.
A 'pure' branch and bound that isn't doing any heuristics or estimation to determine bounds should still search the entire space, so will find the same solution (but hopefully faster!). In a problem space like this it should be able to discard a large number of search directions because they will be... 'crap' basically
.
Note that the model I used for this solution was the one where I eliminated all player who had a max score of less than 80 except for those cheap DPPs (as outlined in the round 14 solution).
Looks like the popular Grundy and Gawn ruck line was definitely not the best way to go this year, at least to this point. No Gawn and holding off on Grundy until R15, never would have picked that.
No trades left for this team at this point - obviously things will change over coming weeks to optimise it, but I'm still expecting most trades to be used up early.
No trades left for this team at this point - obviously things will change over coming weeks to optimise it, but I'm still expecting most trades to be used up early.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
Nice work! Just out of interest, have you compared R14 and R13 using branch and bound vs. normal for accuracy?
A 'pure' branch and bound that isn't doing any heuristics or estimation to determine bounds should still search the entire space, so will find the same solution (but hopefully faster!). In a problem space like this it should be able to discard a large number of search directions because they will be... 'crap' basically.
A 'pure' branch and bound that isn't doing any heuristics or estimation to determine bounds should still search the entire space, so will find the same solution (but hopefully faster!). In a problem space like this it should be able to discard a large number of search directions because they will be... 'crap' basically
.
Result without tolerance 37432
Result with 5% tolerance 37235
Difference of 197 points which is a little more than I would have expected.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
Maximum score (with 5% tolerance) achievable up to round 17 is 46,011 (avg 2,707). This compares to the leader up to round 17 who has 38,834 (avg 2,284).
Note the tolerance is included so the run completes in a reasonable amount of time. This took about 3 hours to solve. Based on the testing I have done I would expect this understates the true maximum by 200 to 300 points.
Note that this doesn't include round 18 as yet. I will run and post that in the next day or 2.
Note the tolerance is included so the run completes in a reasonable amount of time. This took about 3 hours to solve. Based on the testing I have done I would expect this understates the true maximum by 200 to 300 points.
Note that this doesn't include round 18 as yet. I will run and post that in the next day or 2.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2019
- Messages
- 435
- Likes
- 2,565
- AFL Club
- Richmond
hi @Beg2Differ - can the model deal with the full 23 rounds ? I'd be really interested in the full picture - surprised Mills is still in the previous release you did ( with the 3 zeros )
thanks !
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
hi @Beg2Differ - can the model deal with the full 23 rounds ?I'd be really interested in the full picture - surprised Mills is still in the previous release you did ( with the 3 zeros )
thanks !
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
Unfortunately I have not yet had any success in determining the maximum score for season 2021. This is despite rebuilding my model in what I thought was a language that would solve quicker and allowing it to run for 72 hours. It seems 23 rounds is just a bridge too far.
In the mean time I have been able to determine the highest scoring ghost ship for 2021 and can advise that it would not have won this year but would have finished 3rd overall with a score of 53677 points (avg 2334) which was 182 points behind the winning score. That team is listed below.
In the mean time I have been able to determine the highest scoring ghost ship for 2021 and can advise that it would not have won this year but would have finished 3rd overall with a score of 53677 points (avg 2334) which was 182 points behind the winning score. That team is listed below.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
I will again be posting max SC BBL scores for each round this year but before I do that I still have had no luck in determining the highest AFL SuperCoach score for season 2021. I have tried all sorts of things but I just can’t get it to solve in a decent amount of time.
I will have some time off work shortly so may just set it to run on my work PC for a couple of weeks to see if that will deliver a result.
I will have some time off work shortly so may just set it to run on my work PC for a couple of weeks to see if that will deliver a result.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,882
- Likes
- 41,731
- AFL Club
- North Melb.
