NRL Fantasy 2019 part 73

Rippin and Tearin wrote:Another call for input into the potential loop options for the community team....

Currently set up like this. If any one wants to put up a poll for options please do.

I've never set up a poll before.. looked at it yesterday, but thought I'd probably fuck it up

I'd still rather play SST and loop the two CTRs. If I thought SST mightn't be worth playing over 2 CTRs, then I'd upgrade him to Jake.

SI wrote:

Hahaha, as always, I killed it over Byes but now my team is a rabble.

Although just seeing Lachlan Maranta in yours, regardless of whether he is playing or not, gives me hope.

Lachlan Maranta is the new Kenny Sio. You just watch. He'll totally get another game at some point.... (in NSW cup?)

Welshy wrote:

Ponga or Ted?

just don't think it's worth he risk

Teddy for me... all locked in, no turning back.

I posted this in the Captain's poll thread, and am x-posting here .... because it took a while to write.

@Ben Marlin @Rippin and Tearin
-----------

Ben Marlin wrote:
Thanks mate
How do you suggest that I could add depth and controls?

Sure, happy to help! I'll try and update this during the day, between meetings. This here is a helpful guide from a good source: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/Econometrics%20Jan%202018.pdf

Ok, so this is going to be a very short discussion on regression.

You are interested understanding the relationship between a set of observations, and then predicting an outcome.

Each observation consists of a set of variables, which you seem to inherently understand well - i.e. Dude[z] played Minutes[x] against Team[y] in Position[p] in Round[r] with HIAtime[h] ScoringPoints[s]

Another way of saying this is that you have a model of what determines a player's scoring:
S = z + x + y + p + r + h

But that only works for one dude in one game, and it doesn't make any sense even then - because if we give positions a number between 1-17, then the model above says that reserves (14-17) will score higher. So we need to weight these things - in game t we have capital letter weights:

S(t) = D(z) + M(x) + T(y) + P(p) + R(r) + H(h)

but these guesses aren't perfectly correct - because sometimes a Dude will be tired, or really motivated, or have an undisclosed niggle, or play for Des Hasler. We have errors in the model:

S(t) = D(z) + M(x) + T(y) + P(p) + R(r) + H(h) + e(t)

So, if Cook scores 65 against the Dragons with no HIA, in hooker, for 80 minutes, in Round 19:

65 = D(Cookie, or player number 71 [we have to give a number]) + M(80) + T(14 [a number for Dragons]) + P(9) + R(18) + H(0) + e

The next trick is to figure out how big those capital letter weights need to be. We do this, often, by putting all the observations we have into a matrix, and minimising the squared errors in guesses: OLS.

Now, on to your question:
1) the more observations we have, the better our understanding of each Weighted letter will be
1a) this means that a calculation including all available games from Cook, Farah, Teddy, Wighton and BS9 will likely be more informative than just Cook - because we learn more about each Weighted letter with each observation.
2) We also need to think about how many explanatory poitns (eg H, P, M) we should use, as too many makes the calculation meaningless, and too few misses important stuff. The balancing line is a matter of art and science.

Happy to discuss more, but the Romer link is a good place to start. If you're really keen, there's a good uni near you, or lots of great free stuff online (MITx etc).

Cheers, and happy econometrics!

.....

Carty Party benched. Sam stone to start left edge - Tony webeck NRL.COM

I have a very fancy way of picking captain, it's called "gut feel".

Bunnies gonna flog the Dragoons?

L-Jimmy wrote:I posted this in the Captain's poll thread, and am x-posting here .... because it took a while to write.  

@Ben Marlin @Rippin and Tearin
-----------



Sure, happy to help! I'll try and update this during the day, between meetings. This here is a helpful guide from a good source: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/Econometrics%20Jan%202018.pdf

Ok, so this is going to be a very short discussion on regression.

You are interested understanding the relationship between a set of observations, and then predicting an outcome.

Each observation consists of a set of variables, which you seem to inherently understand well - i.e. Dude[z] played Minutes[x] against Team[y] in Position[p] in Round[r] with HIAtime[h] ScoringPoints[s]

Another way of saying this is that you have a model of what determines a player's scoring:
S = z + x + y + p + r + h

But that only works for one dude in one game, and it doesn't make any sense even then - because if we give positions a number between 1-17, then the model above says that reserves (14-17) will score higher. So we need to weight these things - in game t we have capital letter weights:

S(t) = D(z) + M(x) + T(y) + P(p) + R(r) + H(h)

but these guesses aren't perfectly correct - because sometimes a Dude will be tired, or really motivated, or have an undisclosed niggle, or play for Des Hasler. We have errors in the model:

S(t) = D(z) + M(x) + T(y) + P(p) + R(r) + H(h) + e(t)

So, if Cook scores 65 against the Dragons with no HIA, in hooker, for 80 minutes, in Round 19:

65 = D(Cookie, or player number 71 [we have to give a number]) + M(80) + T(14 [a number for Dragons]) + P(9) + R(18) + H(0) + e

The next trick is to figure out how big those capital letter weights need to be. We do this, often, by putting all the observations we have into a matrix, and minimising the squared errors in guesses: OLS.

Now, on to your question:
1) the more observations we have, the better our understanding of each Weighted letter will be
1a) this means that a calculation including all available games from Cook, Farah, Teddy, Wighton and BS9 will likely be more informative than just Cook - because we learn more about each Weighted letter with each observation.
2) We also need to think about how many explanatory poitns (eg H, P, M) we should use, as too many makes the calculation meaningless, and too few misses important stuff. The balancing line is a matter of art and science.

Happy to discuss more, but the Romer link is a good place to start. If you're really keen, there's a good uni near you, or lots of great free stuff online (MITx etc).

Cheers, and happy econometrics!

.....

I had to up vote this post though I have no clue how to use this info.

L-Jimmy wrote:I posted this in the Captain's poll thread, and am x-posting here .... because it took a while to write.  

@Ben Marlin @Rippin and Tearin
-----------

Ben Marlin wrote:
Thanks mate
How do you suggest that I could add depth and controls?

Sure, happy to help! I'll try and update this during the day, between meetings. This here is a helpful guide from a good source: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/Econometrics%20Jan%202018.pdf

Ok, so this is going to be a very short discussion on regression.

You are interested understanding the relationship between a set of observations, and then predicting an outcome.

Each observation consists of a set of variables, which you seem to inherently understand well - i.e. Dude[z] played Minutes[x] against Team[y] in Position[p] in Round[r] with HIAtime[h] ScoringPoints[s]

Another way of saying this is that you have a model of what determines a player's scoring:
S = z + x + y + p + r + h

But that only works for one dude in one game, and it doesn't make any sense even then - because if we give positions a number between 1-17, then the model above says that reserves (14-17) will score higher. So we need to weight these things - in game t we have capital letter weights:

S(t) = D(z) + M(x) + T(y) + P(p) + R(r) + H(h)

but these guesses aren't perfectly correct - because sometimes a Dude will be tired, or really motivated, or have an undisclosed niggle, or play for Des Hasler. We have errors in the model:

S(t) = D(z) + M(x) + T(y) + P(p) + R(r) + H(h) + e(t)

So, if Cook scores 65 against the Dragons with no HIA, in hooker, for 80 minutes, in Round 19:

65 = D(Cookie, or player number 71 [we have to give a number]) + M(80) + T(14 [a number for Dragons]) + P(9) + R(18) + H(0) + e

The next trick is to figure out how big those capital letter weights need to be. We do this, often, by putting all the observations we have into a matrix, and minimising the squared errors in guesses: OLS.

Now, on to your question:
1) the more observations we have, the better our understanding of each Weighted letter will be
1a) this means that a calculation including all available games from Cook, Farah, Teddy, Wighton and BS9 will likely be more informative than just Cook - because we learn more about each Weighted letter with each observation.
2) We also need to think about how many explanatory poitns (eg H, P, M) we should use, as too many makes the calculation meaningless, and too few misses important stuff. The balancing line is a matter of art and science.

Happy to discuss more, but the Romer link is a good place to start. If you're really keen, there's a good uni near you, or lots of great free stuff online (MITx etc).

Cheers, and happy econometrics!

.....

I reckon Dragons turn up tonight somewhat. Don't think they'll win but will be closer than everyone thinks IMO.

sajjos wrote:r

I had to up vote this post though I have no clue how to use this info.

This. I don't know what I just liked, but I liked it.

my tv broke wrote:Carty Party benched. Sam stone to start left edge - Tony webeck NRL.COM

You know you're shit when you get benched for Sam Stone.

WT Winfield wrote:

I've never set up a poll before.. looked at it yesterday, but thought I'd probably fuck it up

I'd still rather play SST and loop the two CTRs. If I thought SST mightn't be worth playing over 2 CTRs, then I'd upgrade him to Jake.

Cheers mate. So far ust the three of us inputing on this one and as it stands its 2 to 1 in favour of the Staggs/SST loop. In the absence of any other input we'll go with thatbut will take everyones suggestions into account, so if anyone wants to add anything you;ve got a few hours!

L-Jimmy wrote:I posted this in the Captain's poll thread, and am x-posting here .... because it took a while to write.  

@Ben Marlin @Rippin and Tearin
-----------



Sure, happy to help! I'll try and update this during the day, between meetings. This here is a helpful guide from a good source: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/Econometrics%20Jan%202018.pdf

Ok, so this is going to be a very short discussion on regression.

You are interested understanding the relationship between a set of observations, and then predicting an outcome.

Each observation consists of a set of variables, which you seem to inherently understand well - i.e. Dude[z] played Minutes[x] against Team[y] in Position[p] in Round[r] with HIAtime[h] ScoringPoints[s]

Another way of saying this is that you have a model of what determines a player's scoring:
S = z + x + y + p + r + h

But that only works for one dude in one game, and it doesn't make any sense even then - because if we give positions a number between 1-17, then the model above says that reserves (14-17) will score higher. So we need to weight these things - in game t we have capital letter weights:

S(t) = D(z) + M(x) + T(y) + P(p) + R(r) + H(h)

but these guesses aren't perfectly correct - because sometimes a Dude will be tired, or really motivated, or have an undisclosed niggle, or play for Des Hasler. We have errors in the model:

S(t) = D(z) + M(x) + T(y) + P(p) + R(r) + H(h) + e(t)

So, if Cook scores 65 against the Dragons with no HIA, in hooker, for 80 minutes, in Round 19:

65 = D(Cookie, or player number 71 [we have to give a number]) + M(80) + T(14 [a number for Dragons]) + P(9) + R(18) + H(0) + e

The next trick is to figure out how big those capital letter weights need to be. We do this, often, by putting all the observations we have into a matrix, and minimising the squared errors in guesses: OLS.

Now, on to your question:
1) the more observations we have, the better our understanding of each Weighted letter will be
1a) this means that a calculation including all available games from Cook, Farah, Teddy, Wighton and BS9 will likely be more informative than just Cook - because we learn more about each Weighted letter with each observation.
2) We also need to think about how many explanatory poitns (eg H, P, M) we should use, as too many makes the calculation meaningless, and too few misses important stuff. The balancing line is a matter of art and science.

Happy to discuss more, but the Romer link is a good place to start. If you're really keen, there's a good uni near you, or lots of great free stuff online (MITx etc).

Cheers, and happy econometrics!

.....

That's pretty much what I was thinking but I just couldn't find the time to write it out.

StormTrooper96 wrote:Bunnies gonna flog the Dragoons?

I really like bunnies 1-12 @ $3

Haha, nice L-Jimmy.

wolfking wrote:I reckon Dragons turn up tonight somewhat.  Don't think they'll win but will be closer than everyone thinks IMO.

Yeah agreed, im expecting a response.

Widdop back along with Hunt they should be better this week, one of the reasons I didn't captain Cook.

Before I found this place, I thought I was pretty fanatical about Fantasy. I now realize I am barely part-time.

Fraser wrote:
I really like bunnies 1-12 @ $3

Great minds etc etc