ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues

Fantasy Leagues => Other Sports Leagues => Wall Street Cycling => Topic started by: Garfield on September 11, 2016, 09:07:48 PM

Title: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: Garfield on September 11, 2016, 09:07:48 PM
So we have a league with long contracts and a neo-pro draft. We have one with riders divided by specialization. Another where their worth is decided by past years' results. Yet another where only a certain group of very related races counts. Soon we'll have one for youngsters and focused on extensions.

What we don't have is a league that requires you to stay active during the entire season and react quickly based on the riders' current shape. And I'm on a mission to change that!

The rules are far from ready. Looking for lots of ideas from your side. The basic concept is to treat the peloton like the trade market. No contracts needed, you simply acquire rider A for an amount B on day C, and from then on he scores whatever he scores.

Losing the rider is the key here though. It could be implemented in many different ways, for example when another team offers you an amount of money you like (even in the middle of a tour), or otherwise automatically after the rider completes the next race, at which point you're reimbursed. Actually, the leaderboard could directly correlate your wealth with your standing.

Example: everybody starts with 1000 coins. Before the Giro, I start an auction for Nibali and another for Viviani, but eventually Joel overbids and gets the former for 312 coins, while Davy snatches the latter for 189. I decide not to buy anybody else. In the Giro, Nibs scores 313 CQ points, Viv 187. Both riders are automatically returned to the pool, and their owners reimbursed. Joel now leads with 1001 coins, I'm second at 1000, Davy has 998.

The calendar and team size would both be quite small here. I'm not sure how much sense it makes. But hey, at least Davy got his ass kicked ;)
Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: davy duck on September 13, 2016, 07:38:28 AM
I'm very enthousiast about this idea.
And I don't mean the idea of getting my ass kicked ...

I think WT-calender will do the trick.
And teams of 10-12 riders.
That way there is plenty of riders left on the market to exchange.

It's a good example you give there. Because there is a big danger in it.If someone stays passive all the time and remains with his 1000 coins, he can not win the game. Some thinking needed to prevent that.

The auction system is good as you propose it, but it should be rather short (with a notification for every manager), and not extendable.
For example. I want xxx for E3 Harelbeke. I start the auction. If several managers places tactical bets just to extend the auction time I wont have him for E3 Harelbeke, and if he rocks there, the week after everybody wants him for RVV.
So perhaps a system of blind auctions ...
For example I start an auction on Benoot. Now everybody got 72 houres to place a bet on Benoot. The highest bid wins.
This needs the help from a moderator who doesn't participate in the game ... Or 100% full trust in the treater of all the incoming bids.

The auction time should be also short because you want to switch quickly in your team. Sunday you do Paris-Roubaix, but for AGR the week after, you want a different team.
Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: Garfield on September 13, 2016, 12:35:14 PM
There is zero chance of implementing blind auctions.

Reminder: you lose every rider after every race they participated in. Therefore: yes, super quick auctions. (Nobody has any riders for Sunday's GW after Friday's E3.) That's doable. E.g. each auction takes 24 hours (plus 10 minutes extension by a new bid), during which each DS can place... only a single bid?

9 riders per team is the most thematic IMO.
Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: davy duck on September 13, 2016, 05:43:55 PM
Pfjew. Every auction takes 24h?
That means before every race be quasi the whole time online to follow your riders who you are bidding for. And if you lost them searching for others. That is not possible.
And what with time difference?
Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: Garfield on September 13, 2016, 06:36:09 PM
Pfjew. Every auction takes 24h?

Like I said, more often than not you will do just fine WITHOUT buying any riders.
You can buy 1, or 2, or 3, and still win a race easily.
For example, I'm pretty sure Sagan will go for around 150-200 for every monument.
He wins? Congratulations on your profit. He finishes 3rd or lower? Big loss!

That means before every race be quasi the whole time online to follow your riders who you are bidding for. And if you lost them searching for others. That is not possible.

Like the actual stock market, this league would be very dynamic. You wouldn't control the entire market. The single (maybe double?) bid per team per rider would ensure you make decent bids for riders you believe in, instead of just constant low-balling half the peloton.

And what with time difference?

We all live in Europe and USA. If we finish auctions at 23:00 CET the day before the race, nobody misses out.
Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: Teton on September 15, 2016, 01:26:08 PM
Count me in! I'll be glad to help too.
Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: TERatcliffe26 on September 15, 2016, 05:13:54 PM
Yh im in
Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: davy duck on September 16, 2016, 06:40:53 AM
you convinced me on some points.
But I regret the fact that you loose all your riders after a race.

If your team stays formed, you could anticipate by buying a rider very early, and cheap.
Of course he takes a place in your squad.

To prevent that I buy Sagan on 1 January and keep him all year you could assign 1 race to the rider.
So I buy on 1January Nibali for Giro d'Italia. That means Nibali is in my squad until end may, and he is unavailable for everybody else. But he will only score points for me in Giro.
This way it's appropriate to have 12-15 places in your squad.

If you lose all your riders after every race, 3 places are enough.

Ending the auction at a certain moment, will always advantage the guys who are online at that time.
Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: Garfield on September 16, 2016, 07:38:00 AM
To prevent that I buy Sagan on 1 January and keep him all year you could assign 1 race to the rider.
So I buy on 1January Nibali for Giro d'Italia. That means Nibali is in my squad until end may, and he is unavailable for everybody else. But he will only score points for me in Giro.

Now it's more like Occupy Wall Street, every single big rider gets occupied before the season starts.

If you lose all your riders after every race, 3 places are enough.

Note that if your score is CQ-cost, the squad size could even be unlimited. Joel will buy 872 riders, everybody else 2-5, and it'll still be a close contest.

Ending the auction at a certain moment, will always advantage the guys who are online at that time.

Not if you place a real value bid before, instead of low-balling.
Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: oliveira on September 16, 2016, 01:58:58 PM
This game has great potential!

My 2c:
- We should implement an automatic cut on budget if someone doesn't place a bet in, say, the month (5-10% of the score?);
- We should get a minimum bet higher than the points a rider get just for finishing the race. (10 at WT events, 30 at GT's?)
Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: Garfield on September 16, 2016, 02:43:46 PM
Glad you like it!

- We should implement an automatic cut on budget if someone doesn't place a bet in, say, the month (5-10% of the score?);

Not an instant fan of the extra work, but I do understand where you're coming from!

- We should get a minimum bet higher than the points a rider get just for finishing the race. (10 at WT events, 30 at GT's?)

Absolutely! I'm thinking more like a flat global 30 even, so that nobody wastes my time by betting 10 on somebody who could potentially score 12.
Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: glomser on September 16, 2016, 06:33:59 PM
I like the idea, but I also have some questions.

1) If you have a rider won for riding a GC does this rider also get points for leading in the GC after every stage? 
2) What happens when you have a rider, place an auction but you're not happy with the ammount that is bid. Does he stay in your team or do you sell him to the 'bank'?
3) Is it even possible to get rid of a rider in a GC during the event. fe. I want to buy Kittel for the Tour, but I only want him for the first week as there are the flat stages. But I know if I auction him no one will buy him. Is it possible to lose him?
4) Is it possible to buy a rider during a GC is already started. fe. In the first week there are flat stages, but after that it getting more hilly. So I like to buy Gesink, who is still free. Can I start an auction then?

For the rest I guess it will be possible to do quick autions even when I see a problem coming. If this auction ends at 23.00 hours, the most managers will wait to 22.59 to place their final bid. And what if several managers place the same ammount. Will the first poster than win the rider? Even when the time is the same?

Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: Garfield on September 17, 2016, 02:24:23 AM
1) yes, regular cq scoring
2) & 3) we only auction free riders
4) sure, not very smart though
5) the first bid is valid and extends the auction for 5-10 minutes, giving others time to post again with a valid amount. These are implementation details and there are a million known ways to do this smoothly, don't worry in advance. Do you think this is the first online auction in the history of the internet?
Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: derrudi on September 27, 2016, 10:25:34 AM
This sounds really cool. However, I do think people might want to hang on to their pet riders too long. Is there some rule we could add that promotes trade? Say: getting points (next to money) for a rider if you sell him?

Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: Garfield on September 27, 2016, 11:09:13 AM
This sounds really cool. However, I do think people might want to hang on to their pet riders too long.

Read it again :P
You lose all your riders after every race.
Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: Teton on September 27, 2016, 01:46:56 PM
I like the ideas here. This should be fun. I would be glad to help!
Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: davy duck on September 28, 2016, 06:16:31 AM
Still totally into the idea!

Some thoughts:

- I think it could be an added value if you don't lose necessarily all your riders. If you can buy a rider whenever you want for 1 specific race, it adds the aspect of timing. If I buy Froome in January, perhaps I can get him for 500. If we all bid in june you wont get him below 1000. Big disadvantage: You bought Froome but he occupates 1 space in your team, without scoring any points in other races. Therefore teams should be very small (5-7 spots), so that you can't fill up your squad with waiting riders. That way it creates stratego ... If I bid in January on Froome for 30. The others have to place a bet on Froome, because you don't want him to be sold for 30.

- In the scoringsystems, their should be something that stimulates attacking DS. If you start with 1000pts, and you don't do anything all season, you end with 1000 pts, you should be somewhere in the bottom of the ranking. So winning points should be much more awarded, then losing points is punished.

Title: Re: New league for 2017: Wall Street Cycling
Post by: Garfield on September 28, 2016, 10:31:49 AM
- I think it could be an added value if you don't lose necessarily all your riders. If you can buy a rider whenever you want for 1 specific race, it adds the aspect of timing. If I buy Froome in January, perhaps I can get him for 500. If we all bid in june you wont get him below 1000. Big disadvantage: You bought Froome but he occupates 1 space in your team, without scoring any points in other races. Therefore teams should be very small (5-7 spots), so that you can't fill up your squad with waiting riders. That way it creates stratego ... If I bid in January on Froome for 30. The others have to place a bet on Froome, because you don't want him to be sold for 30.

Sounds very risky to me.

Best case scenario: I can't even get excited just before the Tour, because most main contenders have been taken for months.

Worst case: All of you fill your teams completely, after which I just go and buy a bunch of great riders on the cheap and just wait. Having (or not) a free slot becomes extremely important.

That's distorting the game I had in mind. I'd prefer to keep it simple and close to actual cycling, with the theme of focusing on the big race to come next.

If you want a bit of continuity, how one KEEPER slot? The right to keep a rider for a second race. Without a chance of keeping the same one for a third race.

(Even as I'm writing it though, not such a big fan. I buy Froome. Expensive, but planning to keep him for both TdS & TdF. Now we're bidding on Quintana. In principle, you can afford to bid twice as much as me, because me keeper will only let me keep one of the two.)

- In the scoringsystems, their should be something that stimulates attacking DS. If you start with 1000pts, and you don't do anything all season, you end with 1000 pts, you should be somewhere in the bottom of the ranking. So winning points should be much more awarded, then losing points is punished.

Au contraire. I can assure you it's impossible to win with 1000 points, and I do intend to punish those who overbid. Maybe not 1:1 so that crashing out of races doesn't ruin it, but nothing extreme. While I do plan to introduce some small inactivity penalty (like 10-20 points for every WorldTour even you miss? that can still be overcome by buying one cheap rider though...) there shouldn't be a huge benefit of just blindly throwing money around all the time.
Title: Re: Brainstorming
Post by: Garfield on October 04, 2016, 05:54:08 AM
So how do you like the new idea of insurance? Are all other rules clear enough? Would 23:00 work better than 22:00?
Title: Re: Brainstorming
Post by: cranky on October 04, 2016, 04:29:30 PM
All sounds good to me, a complete novice at this style of fantasy game so am happy to follow the crowd in decision making for rules.
Title: Re: Brainstorming
Post by: glomser on January 08, 2017, 11:13:47 PM
When does the auction start? First race will be Tour Down Under on 17 januar
Title: Re: Brainstorming
Post by: Garfield on January 09, 2017, 12:04:27 PM
Let's rock'n'roll :judge:
Title: Re: Brainstorming
Post by: TERatcliffe26 on January 09, 2017, 01:42:44 PM
in your examples in the sheet, how come radioshack has 2 amnesty's?
Title: Re: Brainstorming
Post by: Garfield on January 09, 2017, 01:46:46 PM
in your examples in the sheet, how come radioshack has 2 amnesty's?

Just clarified the rules:
"After each race, your single worst negative score in this race is forgotten."
Thus one in TDU, one in PN.
Title: Re: Brainstorming
Post by: TERatcliffe26 on January 09, 2017, 02:03:17 PM
Sorry was my bad, Oversight on the fact they were from different races! Just presumed they were all one race
Title: Re: Brainstorming
Post by: Garfield on January 09, 2017, 02:19:26 PM
Sorry was my bad, Oversight on the fact they were from different races! Just presumed they were all one race

No worries, now is the time to ask! After all that's why I'm being so anal about everybody memorizing the rules :rofl:
And it was a better question than you think, as the original rules didn't clarify whether one amnesty per race or per quarter was allowed.
Title: Re: Brainstorming
Post by: davy duck on January 10, 2017, 09:54:39 AM
Just to be clear.
Limit to open auctions for TdU is sunday 15/1 22.00CET?
Title: Re: Brainstorming
Post by: Garfield on January 10, 2017, 10:02:38 AM
Just to be clear.
Limit to open auctions for TdU is sunday 15/1 22.00CET?

Correct!

The classic doesn't give any CQ points since everybody is still jetlagged:
http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=29006

Which means racing starts on the 17th, which means we close on the 16th, which in turn means no new auctions after the 15th.
Title: Re: Brainstorming
Post by: scrooll7 on January 11, 2017, 11:21:02 AM
should we fill all the 8 spots or we can choose to buy less riders?
Title: Re: Brainstorming
Post by: Garfield on January 11, 2017, 11:29:26 AM
should we fill all the 8 spots or we can choose to buy less riders?

you don't have to buy anybody.
i don't expect everybody to be online before every race, that would be crazy!
Title: Re: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: Garfield on January 11, 2017, 02:58:39 PM
I'm starting to think the 8-man roster limitation isn't needed at all.
The $30 starting value should be enough to deter spamming, no?
(Or maybe I'll raise it to $50 effective from Cadel on.)
Title: Re: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: TERatcliffe26 on January 11, 2017, 04:21:30 PM
50 may be more applicable for grand tours?
Title: Re: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: Garfield on January 11, 2017, 05:36:42 PM
Nah, I think even for classics it works. 9th place scores 52, and we all have an amnesty, so I can foresee at least 20 auctions. No reason to hold too many, if you ask me, since we'll do the whole circus 41 separate times this season alone...

30 is a joke for TdF (finishing is 20 already), and I'd like to establish a single number for simplicity.

50 for a classic should feel like a high stakes poker table. You don't place a bet with a weak-ass hand :)



In other news, maybe limit the amnesty to stage races?
Title: Re: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: TERatcliffe26 on January 12, 2017, 01:37:21 AM
I think 50 is too much for a race like the TDU, you have to finish top 15 to get 30 points as it is, so noone would take any risks then.

same with the classics, if you have to finish top 10, noone will take many chances on riders as it wont be worth it considering there unpredictability
Title: Re: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: Garfield on January 12, 2017, 04:43:36 AM
That's exactly what the game is for: taking huge risks, and betting someone will finish top 10 or grab a stage!
If there is no team size limit, and 30 remains minimum, I'll buy 180 riders during TdF alone.
Title: Re: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: TERatcliffe26 on January 12, 2017, 08:46:09 AM
180 riders in the tdf?

Im less on about the tdf tho. If you have to get 9th in a classic then there is no point going for someone who is unlikely to earn that back you may as well not spend the cash rather than be 35 credits down. The maths are not in the right favor, as only 9 out of 150+ riders would make there money back.
Title: Re: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: Garfield on January 12, 2017, 09:29:59 AM
The maths are not in the right favor, as only 9 out of 150+ riders would make there money back.

My objective exactly! The maths is always strongly against you in the casino. I want every bet to be a risk, no no-brainers. Additionally, we have the mechanics of amnesty and bankrupcy, both protecting you from bad luck.

The only danger of this league getting broken I can see right now is when in August 4-5 of us are on holidays, someone places 50 cheap Vuelta bids without taking any risk, and becomes uncatchable once everybody's back.
Title: Re: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: cranky on January 12, 2017, 05:34:48 PM
I think 30 is right, it gives you a much larger pool of riders to choose from. If it is 50 for one day and shorter stage races then everyone will want the same 10-15 riders meaning that it will be much more difficult to spend your money.

Make it too difficult and everyone will be losing cash on most races, or just not spending any money at all.

For the TDU there is already a good selection of riders up for auction.

Title: Re: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: Garfield on January 13, 2017, 03:16:35 AM
Make it too difficult and everyone will be losing cash on most races, or just not spending any money at all.

I get you point, but... make it too easy and the dude making a million bets will beat the one making good bets.

Since you guys seem much more optimistic than me about the activity level throughout the year, I think the lowest I'd agree to is this:

one day events (WT classics & WC) - 30
WT tours - 50
GT - 70

Example: in TdF 2016, 39 riders scored roughly 100 or more, 17 more - 50 or more, 12 more - 40 or more.
Title: Re: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: davy duck on January 13, 2017, 05:17:07 AM
Quote
I get you point, but... make it too easy and the dude making a million bets will beat the one making good bets.

Just keep the 8 rider roster?
I don't see a reason to skip this rule.
I see it as an extra challenge to balance your bets, and to time your bets.

I a GT that prevents for makinga million silly bets.
If you are talking casino-terms. In poker you don't take risks to win a small pot. You only play if you can win a serious pot.
Title: Re: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: Garfield on January 13, 2017, 05:30:14 AM
Just keep the 8 rider roster?
I don't see a reason to skip this rule.

I realized it is a huge risk if there ever is a race with only 2-3 active people.
It would destroy the game completely.
(In TdF, do I keep my $30 Quintana, or go after your $40 Froome?)
Title: Re: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: davy duck on January 13, 2017, 05:46:47 AM
I meant
Keep the 8 rider roster and higher the min bet.
Totally agree with 30-50-70!

Everybody has a certain responsibility in this game.
Not being obliged to play every race off course, but if only 2-3 guys play the TdF, then the game is already destroyed!
(If only 3 players play the 1 million dollar poker tournament in the casino, the game and casino are destroyed too)
Nothing wrong with making early bets, before going on holliday f.e.
Title: Re: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: Garfield on January 13, 2017, 06:19:49 AM
Keep the 8 rider roster and higher the min bet.
Totally agree with 30-50-70!

With 30-50-70, I feel confident simplifying the rules elsewhere. Makes your lives easier.


Not being obliged to play every race off course, but if only 2-3 guys play the TdF, then the game is already destroyed!

That is my challenge as a game designer: to create something that works for 2 or 22 people all the same.
Title: Re: Wall Street Brainstorming
Post by: davy duck on January 13, 2017, 07:05:41 AM
Quote
That is my challenge as a game designer: to create something that works for 2 or 22 people all the same.

The main UCI-game wouldn't be playable with only 2-3 managers either in his actual format. So don't be to harsh on yourself.
Playing with 2-3 or 20 is mostly so fundamently different ...
Playing poker with 3 or with 100 is also totally different ...

From all the games, I like this one the most I think. So you did a good job as a game designer.  :winner:
Title: Time changes - frustrations
Post by: Teton on March 31, 2018, 05:53:07 PM
Apparently CET changed its clocks, I missed it. Set an alarm for the draft and was an hour late. My fault but FRUSTRATING :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: After doing most of the  nominations, end up with two riders. Again my bad.
Title: Re: Time changes - frustrations
Post by: Garfield on April 03, 2018, 04:43:53 AM
Oh crap, sorry about that. I should have warned you. I guess after years of NBA fandom it simply got automatic inside my head that you guys change the time on the wrong weekend :doh:
Title: Re: Time changes - frustrations
Post by: Teton on April 03, 2018, 11:44:31 AM
Oh crap, sorry about that. I should have warned you. I guess after years of NBA fandom it simply got automatic inside my head that you guys change the time on the wrong weekend :doh:

Not your fault, My Bad!
Title: New small rule
Post by: Garfield on May 09, 2018, 08:37:10 AM
Given recent feedback on how anti-climatic it feels when certain people (that would be moi) monopolize entire races, starting as of now we're limiting everybody to half the field among non-minimum bids. Meaning e.g.: if 17 Tour of California riders are being auctioned, 7 of which remain at the level of 50, nobody can have the current highest bid on more than 5 among the remaining 10.

Minor remarks:
- Again, we completely ignore minimum bids. It's necessary so that we can start auctions freely.
- Assumption: three+ semi-active people at all times.
- Three objectives: added benefit of starting minimum auctions yourself AND a bigger chance of keeping your favourite riders even if somebody decides to bid like crazy AND a less catastrophic outcome if only one person turns up at the dreaded 10pm.
Title: Re: New small rule
Post by: Teton on May 10, 2018, 07:53:05 PM
Given recent feedback on how anti-climatic it feels when certain people (that would be moi) monopolize entire races, starting as of now we're limiting everybody to half the field among non-minimum bids. Meaning e.g.: if 17 Tour of California riders are being auctioned, 7 of which remain at the level of 50, nobody can have the current highest bid on more than 5 among the remaining 10.

Minor remarks:
- Again, we completely ignore minimum bids. It's necessary so that we can start auctions freely.
- Assumption: three+ semi-active people at all times.
- Three objectives: added benefit of starting minimum auctions yourself AND a bigger chance of keeping your favourite riders even if somebody decides to bid like crazy AND a less catastrophic outcome if only one person turns up at the dreaded 10pm.

Works for me!
Title: Re: New small rule
Post by: Garfield on May 11, 2018, 12:56:55 PM
Small correction in wording: the original one didn't make sense because at the beginning there are zero non-minimum bids. Let's write it down again:

You can place as many minimum bids (30 for classics, 50 of tours, 70 for grand tours) as you wish.
You can only place higher bids as long as the total number of auctions you'll then be leading won't exceed half the total number of auctions.
E.g.: if 17 Tour of California riders are being auctioned, nobody can have the current highest bid on more than 8 of those.
Title: Rule status????
Post by: Teton on June 08, 2018, 11:09:35 AM
What happen to our new rule?
You can only place higher bids as long as the total number of auctions you'll then be leading won't exceed half the total number of auctions.

Currently 10 bids above the minimum opening bid, and eight are by the same team.
Title: Re: Rule status????
Post by: TERatcliffe26 on June 08, 2018, 11:47:10 AM
I guess if thats how the rule reads then the minimum bid would always win. As soon as you bid over someone you would own over half that are not the minimum bid so no bids at all can be made beyond the initial bid.

But in any case my bids can be cancelled/removed and revert back to who had them anyway. I cant be on tonight anyway so i guess it doesnt matter
Title: Re: Rule status????
Post by: Garfield on June 08, 2018, 12:15:22 PM
Bryan, you've misread the rule slightly. Nobody broke it:

You can only place higher bids as long as the total number of auctions you'll then be leading won't exceed half the total number of auctions.

That's indeed the rule.
What is the total number of auctions? 22.
Meaning you can only place higher bids as long as the total number of auctions you'll then be leading won't exceed 11.
Title: Re: Rule status????
Post by: Teton on June 08, 2018, 02:13:23 PM
Bryan, you've misread the rule slightly. Nobody broke it:

That's indeed the rule.
What is the total number of auctions? 22.
Meaning you can only place higher bids as long as the total number of auctions you'll then be leading won't exceed 11.

I guess I did, and still do misunderstand.
I thought the maximum number of actions from a bidder could not exceed half of those with bids (other than opening nominations). In the case above, the person making the nominations would be restricted from making bids until more then half get second bids.
Currently 22 auctions, with 10 above the minimum, which would result in no more the 5 (non-nomination) by any one bidder. Which was my understanding.
What's outlined above would result in 22 auctions and max of 11 by any one bidder.

The first person to open actions would only be able to nominate 1 rider, until someone else nominated 1 rider... and so forth.
Title: Re: Rule status????
Post by: Garfield on June 08, 2018, 02:25:34 PM
The rule is a single sentence really, but admittedly you have to repeat it in your head again and again until it clicks. Took me a while too.

You can only place higher bids as long as the total number of auctions you'll then be leading won't exceed half the total number of auctions.

Tonight, the total number of auctions is 22, thus half is 11:

You can only place higher bids as long as the total number of auctions you'll then be leading won't exceed 11.

I'm leading 10? I can bid.
I'm already leading 11? I can't.
Title: The new rule doesn't work
Post by: Garfield on June 08, 2018, 05:01:58 PM
In short:
With only 2.5 participants, the limitation to leading half the auctions means that the correct play is not to start any auctions. Which is not what we want.

In more detail:
1. I start Konrad, Gorka, Frank, and Haig not as solid 50 bets, but rather as cheeky gambles.
2. Those gambles mean now I can't participate in too many other auctions.
3. All riders are auctioned at ridiculous prices. A single rider above 100 in a race where half a dozen will score in triple digits, and the winner can easily get 350?
4. Consequently, next time I'll either start zero auctions, or just skip the gambles altogether. The game loses.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2e/c0/ba/2ec0bafd3ebff4000175a7bdb32f9ec7.jpg)
Title: Re: The new rule doesn't work
Post by: Teton on June 08, 2018, 05:11:15 PM
I agree, this is what i was talking about. This rule suppresses the nomination process, which kills the game. If we modify so the 50% limit rule doesn't apply to nominations, it solves the problem?
Title: Re: The new rule doesn't work
Post by: Garfield on June 08, 2018, 05:50:07 PM
So how about we try this?

- no restrictions on the minimum bets,
- you can only lead a maximum of half or X - whichever is greater - of the non-minimum auctions.

(X is 3 for classics, 5 for tours, 7 for grand tours?)
Title: Re: The new rule doesn't work
Post by: Teton on June 08, 2018, 06:02:21 PM
I like it!! :iatp:
Title: Tiny rule change - more flexible opening timing
Post by: Garfield on August 03, 2018, 02:59:23 AM
Given:
- late startlist changes,
- 90% of all auctions started by Bryan & myself, which is quite a burden...

I hereby propose:

All auctions must be opened before 10:00 CET one calendar day before the race, i.e. Saturday morning for Sunday races.

Effective immediately :judge:
Title: Suspension/deletion of the max number of leading bids rule
Post by: Garfield on March 12, 2019, 12:46:16 PM
Guys, this rule is horrible any way you think about it.

Especially now, when we're not enough people to create reasonable pricing.

Race after race, I can only pick 3 (or 5) riders and then wait to see if anybody else comes online for me to participate again. This does not serve any purpose.

I say we immediately forget about it. Davy strongly agrees. Bryan?
Title: Re: Suspension/deletion of the max number of leading bids rule
Post by: Teton on March 12, 2019, 01:03:25 PM
It adds a different strategy to the game. Early bids (other than nominations) can protect nominations from getting wiped out. The major issue is lack of participation by more than just a couple of us. But if you want to revert back to the original rules, I'm ok with it.
Title: Re: Suspension/deletion of the max number of leading bids rule
Post by: Garfield on March 12, 2019, 01:22:21 PM
In theory yes, we made it more tactical.

In practice, I simply gained a huge advantage by being the one to start auctions early. When only one more person bids, they're forced to pick their 3 (or 5) battles very carefully, and I still get plenty of semi-gratis "Valverde for 30" guaranteed wins.

I say let's go back to the more free-flowing and simple original rules, at least for a while. If you don't like it, please post here again!