2018 NRL.com Fantasy Thread Part 61

SI wrote:

It is set up how they actually intended mate; rolling lockout with ranked subs.  Either way I don't think it would have made much difference at all, you are still playing roulette with your scores.  There have been 'loopholes' for 5 or 6 years.

Not sure about anyone else up the top but Zora has stated not using the poolhop at all, so number 1 is number 1 without it.

Cheaters never prosper...

my tv broke wrote:Simple fact is - you can't have rolling lockout AND have proper ranked subs AND NOT have the ability to 'loophole' with red dot players.

It is impossible to code, because rolling lockout (the ability to move/sub/trade players that have not yet played) clashes directly with the purpose of ranked subs, and will always leave the ability to move players above or below someone who has played and locked.

They would of been aware of this going in. It would have been a business decision to keep rolling lockout, as it keeps the clicks coming, user engagement is the whole point - and I can't really argue with that.

When the number of users is dropping every year, can you claim a win if the diehards that remain spend a bit longer on the site?

They will lose heaps of players after this year, but will be hard to say how many are due to looping and how many due to the fact that the site/apps lacked basic functionality for weeks after launch.

It is part of the game whether you agree with it or not, and it will be part of the game next year as well. I don't really like it, probably because I've never had the opportunity to take an advantage from it

The ONLY thing they could do is simply lock each player in their position in the 21 once the round begins, but still allow trades - but that would limit you in some ways. Ie it would only allow you to then make a direct trade to someone who fits that position once the round has started. I suppose this wouldn't be too bad, you could still have a trade in mind, but wait for injury news before executing (for eg Brown to J Trbo or something) would people be in favour of this?

Locking in everything but trades would be much better than what we have now. At least then looping would cost you a trade so you'd need to be very sure of things before taking the punt.

MilfordTheMagician wrote:I don't get the whole complaining about poolhopping. Don't hate the player hate the game.

The only complaining i'm reading is 100% about the game not the player.

Milchcow wrote:

When the number of users is dropping every year, can you claim a win if the diehards that remain spend a bit longer on the site?

They will lose heaps of players after this year, but will be hard to say how many are due to looping and how many due to the fact that the site/apps lacked basic functionality for weeks after launch.





Locking in everything but trades would be much  better than what we have now. At least then looping would cost you a trade so you'd need to be very sure of things before taking the punt.

Yup, if this was where the compromise had to be at, I'd be up for this.

By the way, random question, but are there any Bayesian people on this site? In particular anyone that is familiar with the workings of 'Trueskill'. Keen to talk with anyone that's interested in that stuff!

Milchcow wrote:

When the number of users is dropping every year, can you claim a win if the diehards that remain spend a bit longer on the site?

They will lose heaps of players after this year, but will be hard to say how many are due to looping and how many due to the fact that the site/apps lacked basic functionality for weeks after launch.

I'd say the large majority of lost users will be down to the shitty system/functionality/etc. I have a bunch of social mates who play, who want to go to supercoach for that reason. None of them even know what loopholing is.

Milchcow wrote:Locking in everything but trades would be much  better than what we have now. At least then looping would cost you a trade so you'd need to be very sure of things before taking the punt.

The more I think about it, I definitely agree.

I don't know how we can push for this change, or if they'd listen.

I do like the idea of it costing you a trade to essentially buy the points for that week (if you don't have a suitable reserve). It does add a bit to the tactical side of things, and will probably advantage those who play the long game.

my tv broke wrote:

I'd say the large majority of lost users will be down to the shitty system/functionality/etc. I have a bunch of social mates who play, who want to go to supercoach for that reason. None of them even know what loopholing is.

I really wish Supercoach had a better scoring system. I'd say goodbye fantasy in a heartbeat.

Milchcow wrote:

When the number of users is dropping every year, can you claim a win if the diehards that remain spend a bit longer on the site?

They will lose heaps of players after this year, but will be hard to say how many are due to looping and how many due to the fact that the site/apps lacked basic functionality for weeks after launch.





Locking in everything but trades would be much  better than what we have now. At least then looping would cost you a trade so you'd need to be very sure of things before taking the punt.

That would do me. I'd much rather a full lockout but at least this way they still get there clicks and those of us who have better things to do aren't too badly disadvantaged.

filthridden wrote:

Get a tattoo?

My computer screen is covered in scone now thanks very much

my tv broke wrote:

The more I think about it, I definitely agree.

I don't know how we can push for this change, or if they'd listen.

I do like the idea of it costing you a trade to essentially buy the points for that week (if you don't have a suitable reserve). It does add a bit to the tactical side of things, and will probably advantage those who play the long game.

The main 'loop' of that system would be something like this

Name Dugan in WFB, Holland in emergency. If Holland scores well, leave Dugan in for a week, otherwise upgrade him.

Still a little bit 'looping' but your decision has flow on effects for the next week (whether you have Dugan or his replacement in your team)

Can't see the opposite happening much (trading a scoring player to a red dot in order to get the score of an NPR) except maybe in rare cases when you are trading in a player who is suspended/on a bye for that week.


Complete lockout would be best though.

Having only 4 subs for 17 players does make life tough. Maybe they thought having 8 players to rank every week was too much, hence the reduction, but a few more subs would be nice

Another option could be to reduce scoring team from 17 to 13 and count the starting players only. I'm guessing people in general wouldn't like that though

Do we know how much roughly users are dropping off each year? I’m amazed that the nrl doesn’t promote it at all. Too busy with gambling sites instead

Well.....unless Jurbo goes big my Brown > Jurbo trade hasn't started the best.

Still think Jurbo will be the better option by season end though.

Krump wrote:
I really wish Supercoach had a better scoring system. I'd say goodbye fantasy in a heartbeat.

Last week showed me how beneficial the new fantasy system is with quite a few last minute outs. Copped an AE score and 2 zeroes in Supercoach whereas I received 3 solid scores in nrl fantasy despite having the same players out

I think this new version benefits teams with a bit of depth and doesnt punish you for more than one late withdrawal on any given week. As much as I dislike being forced into holding ctr cover, I think I'll take the multiple emergencies over one AE substitute

NRL fantasy player decline

2014 there were 207,573 teams (this was when they did the 'Plate' comp after stuffing up round 1, so heaps of people had 2 teams)

2015 - 118,813

2016 - 112,477

2017 - don't have saved

2018 - 102,586 at the moment

Stuffness wrote:Well.....unless Jurbo goes big my Brown > Jurbo trade hasn't started the best.

Still think Jurbo will be the better option by season end though.

Jurbo has scored 60 or better 6 times already this year. It was a solid trade.

I don't suppose you've got the supercoach increases in that time Mr Cow?

The ONLY thing I don’t like about poolhopping is the ability to have a choice about taking a players score or not. I know this analogy doesn’t completely satisfy the complexity of the issue but, in the real world, a coach can’t bring in a player who scored three tries in reserve grade too add 12 points to the scoreboard in the main game. So why, in fantasy when we are trying to mimic the real world would that be seen as acceptable? You should have your 21 for the weak, if a player gets injured and you have no cover tough titties, chose your team better.

pm888 wrote:
Last week showed me how beneficial the new fantasy system is with quite a few last minute outs. Copped an AE score and 2 zeroes in Supercoach whereas I received 3 solid scores in nrl fantasy despite having the same players out

I think this new version benefits teams with a bit of depth and doesnt punish you for more than one late withdrawal on any given week. As much as I dislike being forced into holding ctr cover, I think I'll take the multiple emergencies over one AE substitute

I follow team changes in fantasy over the weekend, but not in Supercoach where I am very much just a casual player.

Got stuffed in my SC scores for the same reason - too many player withdrawals (based on the order of the games was stuffed even if I did log on, as there wasn't anyone I could sub in for Arrow given he was last game of the round)
Annoying when you have players scoring points needlessly unused on the sidelines.

Krump wrote:I don't suppose you've got the supercoach increases in that time Mr Cow?

I don't, but I'm sure you could track it down somewhere

Fortitude wrote:The ONLY thing I don’t like about poolhopping is the ability to have a choice about taking a players score or not. I know this analogy doesn’t completely satisfy the complexity of the issue but, in the real world, a coach can’t bring in a player who scored three tries in reserve grade too add 12 points to the scoreboard in the main game. So why, in fantasy when we are trying to mimic the real world would that be seen as acceptable? You should have your 21 for the weak, if a player gets injured and you have no cover tough titties, chose your team better.

Just to clarify, that is 100% what loopholing is about. I.e. the ONLY thing you dont like about it is ALL that it does.